CTE/Pro One - Why Not Build a Physical Model?

[LAMas]

I always liked this diagram, LAMas. This diagram actually demonstrates quite a bit. It demonstrates that equal-the-distance overlaps are cumbersome with discs of different sizes (visually). It also shows that "CB edge-to-target" references dictate the offset of the shooter's eyes from the CTEL (as diagrammed above) based on distance.

Spidy,
Thanks.

Some folks refuse to accept that shifts of the cue prepivot when aimed on a spot on the OB like 3/4/C will be different when the OB is farther away and appears smaller. Most of those think that all lines converge at angles and that all shifts to that spot are the same regardless of the relative size of the OB appearance.

I can use this non convergence to effect a smaller parallel shift from the CTEL and a bigger shift when the OB is closer and appears to be larger.

Please study the distance "A" in the first diagram and ">A" in the second.

This may help some folks.





This is why the CB doesn't go sailing past the OB on a single angle trajectory, but instead as the OB is farther away from the CB - the shift is smaller and the included trajectory angle is also smaller etc..

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Again, the purpose for this diagram is not to illustrate what people actually see and perceive in 3D while at the table with the head well above the balls.

Regards,
Dave

What they SEE/SIGHT/AIM is totally different than what those diagrams show. That's my point -- and why people who read that crap can't play their entire life. The value of those diagrams is zero -- bad information.

This is a great example of why your understanding of pool is limited to a chalk board and not years of hard-core playing. Since pool isn't played in the manner of which your diagrams describe, it almost makes one wonder why they read your site or posts at all.

Unless your posts and cute little diagrams focus on what people SEE while playing pool, it makes you wonder how much time you've wasted on red-herring, bad information.

 

[Jal]

What they SEE/SIGHT/AIM is totally different than what those diagrams show. That's my point -- and why people who read that crap can't play their entire life. The value of those diagrams is zero -- bad information.

This is a great example of why your understanding of pool is limited to a chalk board and not years of hard-core playing. Since pool isn't played in the manner of which your diagrams describe, it almost makes one wonder why they read your site or posts at all.

Unless your posts and cute little diagrams focus on what people SEE while playing pool, it makes you wonder how much time you've wasted on red-herring, bad information.

Well, most of us, including Dr. Dave, I believe, don't live near the edge of a black hole. That might be the only place in which your funky CTE geometry applies. For example, you offered up this diagram to show that what appears to be edge-to-edge alignment, really isn't:

when in fact it is. The only way you're going to see the edges "touching" as such is if the relevant eye (or your 'vision center') lies in the vertical plane containing the left-edge to left-edge line segment. Then, if you aim parallel to it, miracle of miracles, you'll end up with a full hit...except in your neighborhood, of course.

If your eye (or vision center) isn't in that vertical plane, you'll never see the image shown in your diagram, and therefore, it's irrelevant to your assertion.

Dr. Dave's diagrams illustrate things as they are, not as the mangled distortions emanating from the CTE procrustean bed.

Jim

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Well, most of us, including Dr. Dave, I believe, don't live near the edge of a black hole. That might be the only place in which your funky CTE geometry applies. For example, you offered up this diagram to show that what appears to be edge-to-edge alignment, really isn't:

when in fact it is. The only way you're going to see the edges "touching" as such is if the relevant eye (or your 'vision center') lies in the vertical plane containing the left-edge to left-edge line segment. Then, if you aim parallel to it, miracle of miracles, you'll end up with a full hit...except in your neighborhood, of course.

If your eye (or vision center) isn't in that vertical plane, you'll never see the image shown in your diagram, and therefore, it's irrelevant to your assertion.

Dr. Dave's diagrams illustrate things as they are, not as the mangled distortions emanating from the CTE procrustean bed.

Jim

What I meant was edge/edge, center/center, edge/edge alignment lock (stop shot), with your line of sight straight down the center of the spheres. As the distance of the balls increase/decrease, the distance that your eyes have to move from its original position to acquire a "visual" edge alignment changes, even though the balls are the same size physically. If the balls were touching, you wouldn't have to move your eyes at all to see the edges touch on the same vertical plane.

Your example assumes your eyes start from the edge/edge line and the distance increases -- sure, no doubt. That's like saying the center/center line never changes visually over a distance (when your line of sight is straight down that line) - no duh.

If you start from one line of reference and use that as a baseline (never changing), the other two change (three lines being 2 edges and 1 center).

Keep thinking about it smarty pants and you'll eventually figure it out. Perspective illusions force alignment changes.

 

[STICKBNDER]

did you get my pm? Take it to the table and you should be able to figure most of the system now. Sometimes you will not be on the true cte line, but that is ok and thats the way i see it anyway, there are a lot of illusions on the pool table but i try and make it work. Its not a bad thing to trick your mind into seeing illusions if that helps you.

ok so what is top secret here? I have the dvd. Gave up on it when i couldNT execute cte on a regular basis. I do admit it worked. But i was only making the shots 50 to 70 percent. Can you pm me the same info?

 

[champ2107]

ok so what is top secret here? I have the dvd. Gave up on it when i couldNT execute cte on a regular basis. I do admit it worked. But i was only making the shots 50 to 70 percent. Can you pm me the same info?

so what potting percentage are you hoping to achieve?

 

[scottjen26]

LAMas, nice diagram (as always). This latest one should help illustrate for people conceptually how the same aiming point and pivot can be used to make 2 different shots that are on the same line but different distances away from the cue ball.

That concept of the object ball being visually smaller as distance changes is key. I believe it's responsible, either mathematically or visually, for how 2 shots that are on the same line but different distances from the CB can be made with the same same visualization of the CTE and aim line and same pivot. Simply due to our eyes picking up different effective CTE and aim lines resulting in a different pre-pivot position, effectively self correcting for various distances and angles within a given aim line/pivot group.

At least that's how I finally wrapped my head around it, now I just use it and don't worry about the particulars anymore...

Scott

 

[champ2107]

im not sure if this is worth posting but i have never paid attention to all these pictures and don't understand 90% of them either, they look good though lol i personally think its a waste of time discussing how much smaller the balls look at a distance, but hey that's just me.

 

[LAMas]

LAMas, nice diagram (as always). This latest one should help illustrate for people conceptually how the same aiming point and pivot can be used to make 2 different shots that are on the same line but different distances away from the cue ball.

That concept of the object ball being visually smaller as distance changes is key. I believe it's responsible, either mathematically or visually, for how 2 shots that are on the same line but different distances from the CB can be made with the same same visualization of the CTE and aim line and same pivot. Simply due to our eyes picking up different effective CTE and aim lines resulting in a different pre-pivot position, effectively self correcting for various distances and angles within a given aim line/pivot group.

At least that's how I finally wrapped my head around it, now I just use it and don't worry about the particulars anymore...

Scott

Scott,
Well written and spot on for those that can/will benefit from the diagrams in Power Point that are cartoons of the AutoCad studies that are geometrically accurate but are too intricate for most to grasp.:smile::thumbup:

 

[champ2107]

Scott,
Well written and spot on for those that can/will benefit from the diagrams in Power Point that are cartoons of the AutoCad studies that are geometrically accurate but are too intricate for most to grasp.:smile::thumbup:

guess im just a not as bright as you guys! :smile: actually i just never felt the need to look at them and was able to figure all this stuff out on my own but they do look pretty good! haha

 

[LAMas]

guess im just a not as bright as you guys! :smile:

Champ,
This is an academic thread for those that seek methods of improving their game. Most of the better shooters that I know including Efren do/can not understand most of what we post here.:smile:

You don't need to understand my diagrams to improve your game...just shoot a million balls....you will improve.:thumbup:

 

[champ2107]

Champ,
This is an academic thread for those that seek methods of improving their game. Most of the better shooters that I know including Efren do/can not understand most of what we post here.:smile:

You don't need to understand my diagrams to improve your game...just shoot a million balls....you will improve.:thumbup:

will do and i will leave this thread for you academics to try and figure out how to pocket a ball do your brain storming lol im just kidding around lamas, but i know your not lol im working on my own visual distance kind of thing

 

[STICKBNDER]

so what potting percentage are you hoping to achieve?

well i shoot better than %50 to %70 without cte. But on shots that i can make regularly, but cant with cte is why i resort back to shooting the way i know how.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...the center/center line never changes visually over a distance (when your line of sight is straight down that line) - no duh.

If you start from one line of reference and use that as a baseline (never changing), the other two change (three lines being 2 edges and 1 center).

You apparently think they "change" as the CB/OB distance changes. But the converging lines that you "see" from the CB's edges to the OB's edges are exactly the same converging lines no matter how far apart the balls are. If you put a second object ball some distance behind the first one, both OB's edges will lie exactly on the same straight, converging lines originating from the CB.

Keep thinking about it smarty pants and you'll eventually figure it out. Perspective illusions force alignment changes.

You should really be sure you know what you're talking about before acting so smug, not-so-smarty pants.

pj
chgo

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Oh boy, here we go.

 

[champ2107]

great! this guy is going to drag the old crew back together and into these threads again. now i have to find that pj vs jb link again

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Some folks refuse to accept that shifts of the cue prepivot when aimed on a spot on the OB like 3/4/C will be different when the OB is farther away and appears smaller.

Put me in the group that doesn't buy this explanation of CTE's "exactness", at least until you can explain this away:

If the OB is apparently smaller, then all the points on the OB (for instance the OB's right edge and "aimpoint" C) are apparently closer together.

And since they "pivot" on corresponding CB points (whose distance apart doesn't change), when they reach the eyes they're apparently farther apart, not apparently closer together.

These are the lines that define the "CTE visual" that must be "acquired" in order to shift your cue from centerball to the proper pre-pivot line - so how does this get translated to a smaller shift rather than a larger one?

Your diagram ignores the CB-edge-to-OB-C line and substitutes a cue shift equal to the "apparent" OB-C-to-OB-edge distance. This isn't how CTE supposedly works. (And, by the way, the translation of this apparent distance from the distant OB to the nearby CB isn't likely to be the same from player to player, but that's an additional matter.)

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You apparently think they "change" as the CB/OB distance changes. But the converging lines that you "see" from the CB's edges to the OB's edges are exactly the same converging lines no matter how far apart the balls are. If you put a second object ball some distance behind the first one, both OB's edges will lie exactly on the same straight, converging lines originating from the CB.


You should really be sure you know what you're talking about before acting so smug, not-so-smarty pants.

pj
chgo

Physical lines are not the same as the visual lines, smarty pants.

Won't be long now...9...8...7..6...5..4..3.2...1....banned....again.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
...the converging lines that you "see" from the CB's edges to the OB's edges are exactly the same converging lines no matter how far apart the balls are. If you put a second object ball some distance behind the first one, both OB's edges will lie exactly on the same straight, converging lines originating from the CB.

Spidey:
Physical lines are not the same as the visual lines, smarty pants.

"Converging lines" are the visual lines. Lots of people have trouble visualizing this stuff - usually they know themselves well enough to avoid promoting themselves as the "expert" on it.

Won't be long now...9...8...7..6...5..4..3.2...1....banned....ag ain.

You're probably right. But you'll still be... well, you.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

"Converging lines" are the visual lines. Lots of people have trouble visualizing this stuff - usually they know themselves well enough to avoid promoting themselves as the "expert" on it.


You're probably right. But you'll still be... well, you.

pj
chgo

Totally different-- visual alignment means two points meet on a vertical plane (straight up/down in your field of vision, regardless of distance).

Stop hating, Captain Carp. I wonder how long it'll be before the Action Forum has the over/under for when you get plonked again.