CTE PRO ONE Contrast with Quarters System

[ENGLISH!]

Come on Rick. You know the answer, you posted it yourself:
" Please understand that I understand that as one walks around a sphere & looks at it there are an infinite number of 'visual edges'. BUT...when one stops and establishes a relationship one can only see two 'visual edges' on the equator line, one to the left & one to the right."

No I don't because we WERE talking about getting a different outcome angle on a different shot that is parallel to another but with a totally different angle to the pocket.

When I shoot shot 1 with say CTE & ETA with a thinning pivot & then move over to a parallel shot but with the object ball on a different angle to the pocket, I see nothing objective that would bring me to a different line.

So...when I shoot that 2nd. shot with an objective sighting of CTE & ETA with a thinning pivot the ball comes out at the same angle as the 1st. shot & goes into the short rail & not even near the pocket.

But now you say that there is something objective that brings you to a different line.

If you rotate around the sphere of the OB to see a different edge you lose the straight line relation between the 3, the OB, the CB & the Vision center.

If one rotates around the CB one loses it too.

Now...if you're saying to freeze those lines that connect the 3 points & then step to the side & look at it as if another person is looking at them & shoot from that 'new' location that would result in a different outcome angle but what is objective about that?

How can there be a different objective line than the one where one stands in the one & only spot where the CTE & ETX line can be seen simultaneously?

Like I said if I get on that line & then move to get where my experience tells me that I need to be to make the shot I have then utilized my subjective intuition & am no longer on the objective visual line of CTE & ETX.

I don't see how any individual that is being genuine can't understand what I've just said.

If there is an objective piece that I'm missing then please just plainly tell me what it is.

You say it's objective but won't tell me what it is & say that I know.

Well, what I stated above is what I know.

Best,
Rick

 

[stan shuffett]

No I don't because we WERE talking about getting a different outcome angle on a different shot that is parallel to another but with a totally different angle to the pocket.

When I shoot shot 1 with say CTE & ETA with a thinning pivot & then move over to a parallel shot but with the object ball on a different angle to the pocket, I see nothing objective that would bring me to a different line.

So...when I shoot that 2nd. shot with an objective sighting of CTE & ETA with a thinning pivot the ball comes out at the same angle as the 1st. shot & goes into the short rail & not even near the pocket.

But now you say that there is something objective that brings you to a different line.

If you rotate around the sphere of the OB to see a different edge you lose the straight line relation between the 3, the OB, the CB & the Vision center.

If one rotates around the CB one loses it too.

Now...if you're saying to freeze those lines that connect the 3 points & then step to the side & look at it as if another person is looking at them & shoot from that 'new' location that would result in a different outcome angle but what is objective about that?

How can there be a different objective line than the one where one stands in the one & only spot where the CTE & ETX line can be seen simultaneously?

Like I said if I get on that line & then move to get where my experience tells me that I need to be to make the shot I have then utilized my subjective intuition & am no longer on the objective visual line of CTE & ETX.

I don't see how any individual that is being genuine can't understand what I've just said.

If there is an objective piece that I'm missing then please just plainly tell me what it is.

You say it's objective but won't tell me what it is & say that I know.

Well, what I stated above is what I know.

Best,
Rick

Lol Sure you get the same angles. Put it on video!

Stan Shuffett

 

[LAMas]

"I've asked at least 3 times for someone to explain outer most & inner most "edge" & no one has even attempted to do so."
English

On a cut shot, Could the innermost edge on the CB be the edge that is closest to the OB and the outermost edge be the edge that is farthest away from the OB?

On a cut shot, Could the innermost edge on the OB be the edge that is closest to the CB and the outermost edge be the edge that is farthest away from the CB?

What other explanations are there?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you move the balls to a parallel location the CTEL rotates around the OB. The CTEL goes through the outermost edge of the OB. So when the balls move that line also moves or rotates around the OB thus creating a different angle with the same visuals. I may not be explaining it real well but I think this is where you and PJ get lost with CTE. The CTEL never hits the same spot on OB unless its the same exact angle, the reference lines however do hit the same spot.

Sorry, but this "rotating edges" stuff was dreamed up by Hal Houle many years ago and is still false today. Glue the CB and OB to a flat stick so they can't move in relation to each other - place the stick with the glued on balls anywhere on the table. Sight the CTE line for left and right OB edges and paint a dot on the left edge and right edge of the OB.

Move the stick around to various other locations and angles on the table and sight the left and right CTE lines again. Are the dots still on the edges? If not you're in the wrong universe, because in this one they always are.

Thanks for trying, Cookie, but I'm sure Stan's official explanation of how to "acquire the visual" will be much better than this old fairy tale.

Pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

Lol Sure you get the same angles. Put it on video!

Stan Shuffett

Long post amended to the following.

No need to do so.

Anyone can go to a table & make their own determinations just as they should & just as I did.

 

[ENGLISH!]

"I've asked at least 3 times for someone to explain outer most & inner most "edge" & no one has even attempted to do so."
English

On a cut shot, Could the innermost edge on the CB be the edge that is closest to the OB and the outermost edge be the edge that is farthest away from the OB?

On a cut shot, Could the innermost edge on the OB be the edge that is closest to the CB and the outermost edge be the edge that is farthest away from the CB?

What other explanations are there?

My thinking was that they were referencing the visual 'outside edge', the point on the equator where the line for the center of the CB goes to that edge. I don't thing they were referencing two totally different sides of the ball.

BY definition an edge is a demarcation line between two different things. Like the edge of a forest, where on one side there are trees & on the other side there are no trees.

Typically speaking there can be no inner edge or outer edge.

Yet it has been said by, I won't name who, that he was visually aligning to the outer edge seemingly to imply as a means of increasing the cut angle.

I have no idea what the outer edge or inner edge is when used in reference to the 'same' part of a ball. Unless one is referring to the outside & inside of the ball relative to the pocket or an angle with the ball at the apex of the angle but that would be two different sides of the ball.

Thanks for trying & Best 2 You & All,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

Sorry, but this "rotating edges" stuff was dreamed up by Hal Houle many years ago and is still false today. Glue the CB and OB to a flat stick so they can't move in relation to each other - place the stick with the glued on balls anywhere on the table. Sight the CTE line for left and right OB edges and paint a dot on the left edge and right edge of the OB.

Move the stick around to various other locations and angles on the table and sight the left and right CTE lines again. Are the dots still on the edges? If not you're in the wrong universe, because in this one they always are.

Thanks for trying, Cookie, but I'm sure Stan's official explanation of how to "acquire the visual" will be much better than this old fairy tale.

Pj
chgo

Thanks PJ.

You're much more experienced with this than I am & that was a very good 'picture'.

I was trying to explain that if one moved their vision then the straight line of all three(3) being on that line would be lost.

Rotating around that OB sort of reminds me of the ghostball rotating around until it is in the appropriate place to pocket the ball.

Thanks again,
Rick

 

[nobcitypool]

Sorry, but this "rotating edges" stuff was dreamed up by Hal Houle many years ago and is still false today. Glue the CB and OB to a flat stick so they can't move in relation to each other - place the stick with the glued on balls anywhere on the table. Sight the CTE line for left and right OB edges and paint a dot on the left edge and right edge of the OB.

Move the stick around to various other locations and angles on the table and sight the left and right CTE lines again. Are the dots still on the edges? If not you're in the wrong universe, because in this one they always are.

Thanks for trying, Cookie, but I'm sure Stan's official explanation of how to "acquire the visual" will be much better than this old fairy tale.

Pj
chgo

The more you post, the more evident it becomes of how you have no clue how the system works. And you fancy yourself a technical expert on the sport. Thanks for the laughs Patrick, keep them coming.

 

[nobcitypool]

Long post amended to the following.

No need to do so.

Anyone can go to a table & make their own determinations just as they should & just as I did.

Stan, he's not going to video that crooked stroke, no way. So you made your own determination. What possible reason do you have then for continuing to harangue Stan and CTE? BTW, that was a rhetorical question. It is clear to everyone why you do. You should stick to your areas of expertise, like center of gravity and sweet spot. LMAO!

 

[ENGLISH!]

Stan, he's not going to video that crooked stroke, no way. So you made your own determination. What possible reason do you have then for continuing to harangue Stan and CTE? BTW, that was a rhetorical question. It is clear to everyone why you do. You should stick to your areas of expertise, like center of gravity and sweet spot. LMAO!

You've never seen my stroke.

My only issue is the affirmation that CTE is totally objective. What objective tells the shooter in what direction to pivot?

You're harping on a casual conversation were I said 'on' instead of 'on line with'.

I'd hazard a guess that you laugh the most when you look in the mirror. If not, I think you should.

PS You have been & will continue to be in my prayers because IMO you really need help.

 

[LAMas]

My thinking was that they were referencing the visual 'outside edge', the point on the equator where the line for the center of the CB goes to that edge. I don't thing they were referencing two totally different sides of the ball.

BY definition an edge is a demarcation line between two different things. Like the edge of forest, where on one side there are trees & on the other side there are no trees.

Typically speaking there can be no inner edge or outer edge.

Yet it has been said by, I won't name who, that he was visually aligning to the outer edge seemingly to imply as a means of increasing the cut angle.

I have no idea what the outer edge or inner edge is when used in reference to the 'same' part of a ball. Unless one is referring to the outside & inside of the ball relative to the pocket or an angle with the ball at the apex of the angle.

Thanks for trying & Best 2 You & All,
Rick

Where did a thinning or thickening pivot come from and is it 1/2 the diameter to the side of the cue tip - tp to you? With a 12" distance from the CB to the bridge, that could be only around 1.1 degrees to the side of the center of the CB,,,not much but it does make a difference on the shot angle.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Where did a thinning or thickening pivot come from and is it 1/2 the diameter to the side of the cue tip - tp to you? With a 12" distance from the CB to the bridge, that could be only around 1.1 degrees to the side of the center of the CB,,,not much but it does make a difference on the shot angle.

If you're asking me you're asking the wrong person. But I have wondered why there is no shot in CTE where once you are on the line of CTE & ETX that you do not shoot it with no offset & no pivot.

To me that would seem to be another objective shot line. But I did not reverse engineer it, but I would certainly imagine that there must be shots for those angles.

As to the pivot, I'm sure there are others that have done studies & taken measurements, etc. but the bridge length from the cue ball certainly makes a difference & to me a 1/2 tip pivot is placing the visual edge of the tip at the center of the ball & then pivoting the center of the tip to the center of the ball. The shorter the bridge the greater the angle change.

I could be wrong, but I think when the 'discussions' revolved around the various pivot lengths that was the conception & birth of the 'visual sweep'.

Hence there are issues with pivot amount & pivot length & therefore the 'visual sweep' that is supposed to be equal to the 1/2 tip pivot. How one objectively accomplishes that approximate 6.5 mm move exactly is another topic for 'discussion'.

But hey, it's working for those that it is. So there is merit there.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[Mirza]

That's an interesting experiment and it was as you and BeiberLvr said.

Do you use the left eye to see the left edge, 1/8, A then across to B (center) and the right eye to see the right edge, 7/8, C then across to B? I can do that.

I digress:
My eyes are about 2/14 inches apart so that if I look at the CB with my nose pointed at the center of the CB with my left eye, the left edge of the CB is lined up with the left edge of the OB (9:00) on a straight in (aim line) CB to OB alignment; with my right eye the right edge of the CB is pointed at the right edge of the OB (3:00). I close the opposite eye to veryfy this.

What does a one eyed man have to do?

Correct way is to see the visuals with your vision center (where the cue intersects your face), for two line visuals - BOTH at the same time.

 

[LAMas]

If you're asking me you're asking the wrong person. But I have wondered why there is no shot in CTE where once you are on the line of CTE & ETX that you do not shoot it with no offset & no pivot.

To me that would seem to be another objective shot line. But I did not reverse engineer it, but I would certainly imagine that there must be shots for those angles.

As to the pivot, I'm sure there are others that have done studies & taken measurements, etc. but the bridge length from the cue ball certainly makes a difference & to me a 1/2 tip pivot is placing the visual edge of the tip at the center of the ball & then pivoting the center of the tip to the center of the ball. The shorter the bridge the greater the angle change.

I could be wrong, but I think when the 'discussions' revolved around the various pivot lengths that was the conception & birth of the 'visual sweep'.

Hence there are issues with pivot amount & pivot length & therefore the 'visual sweep' that is supposed to be equal to the 1/2 tip pivot. How one objectively accomplishes that approximate 6.5 mm move exactly is another topic for 'discussion'.

But hey, it's working for those that it is. So there is merit there.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

Geometrically, center CB to center OB would yield 0 degrees, center of CB to 1/4 OB would yield a <15 degree cut and CTE would yield around <30 degrees with no offset or pivot. With the bridge set at 12" behind the OB, and employing different offsets of the cue tip prior to pivoting back to the center of the CB will yield thinner or thicker cut angles to the aforementioned 0, 15 degrees and 30 degrees. Greater cut angles than 30 would have you starting your aim off of the edge of the OB. That is where aiming the edge of the CB at fractions on the OB is helpful.

Be well.

 

[cookie man]

Sorry, but this "rotating edges" stuff was dreamed up by Hal Houle many years ago and is still false today. Glue the CB and OB to a flat stick so they can't move in relation to each other - place the stick with the glued on balls anywhere on the table. Sight the CTE line for left and right OB edges and paint a dot on the left edge and right edge of the OB.

Move the stick around to various other locations and angles on the table and sight the left and right CTE lines again. Are the dots still on the edges? If not you're in the wrong universe, because in this one they always are.

Thanks for trying, Cookie, but I'm sure Stan's official explanation of how to "acquire the visual" will be much better than this old fairy tale.

Pj
chgo

Same old outdated opinion based on sitting behind a keyboard from PJ. We are way passed the old arguments you continue to put up.

 

[cookie man]

Thanks PJ.

You're much more experienced with this than I am & that was a very good 'picture'.

I was trying to explain that if one moved their vision then the straight line of all three(3) being on that line would be lost.

Rotating around that OB sort of reminds me of the ghostball rotating around until it is in the appropriate place to pocket the ball.

Thanks again,
Rick

Its a terrible picture and you said so earlier. You can't paint a dot on a ball and expect it to always be in the same place. As the balls move you get new CTEL and reference lines.

 

[cookie man]

No I don't because we WERE talking about getting a different outcome angle on a different shot that is parallel to another but with a totally different angle to the pocket.

When I shoot shot 1 with say CTE & ETA with a thinning pivot & then move over to a parallel shot but with the object ball on a different angle to the pocket, I see nothing objective that would bring me to a different line.

So...when I shoot that 2nd. shot with an objective sighting of CTE & ETA with a thinning pivot the ball comes out at the same angle as the 1st. shot & goes into the short rail & not even near the pocket.

But now you say that there is something objective that brings you to a different line.

If you rotate around the sphere of the OB to see a different edge you lose the straight line relation between the 3, the OB, the CB & the Vision center.

If one rotates around the CB one loses it too.

Now...if you're saying to freeze those lines that connect the 3 points & then step to the side & look at it as if another person is looking at them & shoot from that 'new' location that would result in a different outcome angle but what is objective about that?

How can there be a different objective line than the one where one stands in the one & only spot where the CTE & ETX line can be seen simultaneously?

Like I said if I get on that line & then move to get where my experience tells me that I need to be to make the shot I have then utilized my subjective intuition & am no longer on the objective visual line of CTE & ETX.

I don't see how any individual that is being genuine can't understand what I've just said.

If there is an objective piece that I'm missing then please just plainly tell me what it is.

You say it's objective but won't tell me what it is & say that I know.

Well, what I stated above is what I know.

Best,
Rick

As the balls move you get new CTEL and reference lines. Get away from the keyboard and start understanding

 

[cookie man]

Sorry, but this "rotating edges" stuff was dreamed up by Hal Houle many years ago and is still false today. Glue the CB and OB to a flat stick so they can't move in relation to each other - place the stick with the glued on balls anywhere on the table. Sight the CTE line for left and right OB edges and paint a dot on the left edge and right edge of the OB.

Move the stick around to various other locations and angles on the table and sight the left and right CTE lines again. Are the dots still on the edges? If not you're in the wrong universe, because in this one they always are.

Thanks for trying, Cookie, but I'm sure Stan's official explanation of how to "acquire the visual" will be much better than this old fairy tale.

Pj
chgo

Glue balls to a stick and paint dots, HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[BeiberLvr]

Sorry, but this "rotating edges" stuff was dreamed up by Hal Houle many years ago and is still false today. Glue the CB and OB to a flat stick so they can't move in relation to each other - place the stick with the glued on balls anywhere on the table. Sight the CTE line for left and right OB edges and paint a dot on the left edge and right edge of the OB.

Move the stick around to various other locations and angles on the table and sight the left and right CTE lines again. Are the dots still on the edges? If not you're in the wrong universe, because in this one they always are.

Thanks for trying, Cookie, but I'm sure Stan's official explanation of how to "acquire the visual" will be much better than this old fairy tale.

Pj
chgo

Wrong as usual with regards to CTE, buddy :grin-square:

The visuals are obtained by first having the correct perception. The perception is based on where you stand behind the shot. This will generally be where you would stand to just naturally get down into your stance.

The cueball is a sphere, and thus does not have a static center. So looking at the 5 parallel shots example...

On the thickest shot, you are only offset slightly.
On the thinnest shot, you are offset even more.

While you're still looking at the center of the cueball for each shot, the center you are looking at is different, because your perception (where you are standing in relation to the CB/OB relationship) is different.

 

[ENGLISH!]

As the balls move you get new CTEL and reference lines. Get away from the keyboard and start understanding

I think you're trying to help but that makes absolutely NO logical sense.

Yes as the CB & OB are moved on the table you have NEW lines relative to the table BUT... the CTE line relative to the balls themselves is OBJECTIVELY CONSTANT.

Are you playing games to divert? I'm just asking because of the absurdity of saying that 'if we move the balls we have a NEW & DIFFERENT visual CTE.

I don't care if the balls are sitting on the surface of the moon the visual line goes from the visual 'center' of the cue ball to the visual 'edge' of the object ball.

Move them to Mars & that line is visually the same. It's in a different location the Moon to Mars BUT it is visually the same from ball to ball.

It seems we need to go into lessons of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgH9KXEQ0YU

Best 2 You & All,
Rick