Cte

[champ2107]

Here you go for the second time, same ctel,aim point and pivot. Explain to me where Pj's calculations factor in here or in any part of the cte system? Explain how dr dave/PJ say 6 cut types are not enough? ok, I will assume you are knowledgeable, i am now listening? I did get a chuckle from reading the word assumption

champ, come on -- the CB/OB separation is very different in those two shots. Please reread what I said in post #182, and what I asked you about in post #193.

And now I do remember your posting those same two shots a few days ago. Here is what I said at the time. You said nothing rational or cogent in response:

champ, for the second shot, yes, I'd use B with a pivot from left to right. That seems to work reasonably well.

But for the first shot, B with a left pivot overcuts the shot for me. B with a right pivot undercuts it (usually, in my trials). The best solution for me with your first shot is A with a left pivot.

So I disagree that the two shots are absolutely both B's with a left pivot. Apparently the visuals are a bit different from person to person.

But the reason both shots could work for some people with the same B/left alignment is that the CB/OB separations for the two shots are very different. The separation is about two times as much for shot 2 as for shot 1. That creates different angles sighting to the smaller appearing OB on the longer shot.

But in any case, these two shots say nothing about the point that jsp and I have been making over and over. That point relates to having two shots with the same CB/OB separation, doing exactly the same thing in terms of choosing an alignment from Stan's menu of possibilities (including pivoting from the same side with the same amount of offset), using the same bridge length -- and then getting different results (different cut angles).​

Listen again i will tell you, I took those shots from the dvd, the dvd says they are a B with a left pivot. I will tell you again i have not tried any of the shots from the dvd on a table because i did not need too. The shots are not 3 inches apart so need for to worry about cb/ob separation. Forget about the balls looking smaller and all that bridging bs, I shorten my bridge on cuts shot 3,4,5,6,7, inches and tweak the lines a bit and thats all i do. I mostly shoot without the lines, and shoot some pro1 and manual sometimes also. As for reference points an A/B/C for me is the same for you unless you adjust. I have found i can use a B with an inside pivot sometimes but can also tweak it to a 1/8 inside if i want. Take my advice and follow Stans instructions and not Dr Daves or someone on here who can write a pretty post or draw a cute picture.

I will throw you a bone and say this, the first picture looks to me like it would be an A with a left pivot also. But its a picture and we are not standing at a table getting the real visual.

 

[jwpretd]

For a given CB/OB separation, yes. Actually, it would be 11 rather than 12, because "straight" would be counted twice.

Stan's basic CTE alignment described as

CB center to OB right [originally misstated as "left"] edge, and CB left edge to point B on the OB

is used to align yourself for all left cut angles between 15 and 30 degrees, without regard to CB to OB distance. That is an infinite number of cut angles, though in practice once you get down to arc second differences you can probably quit distinguishing them. How do you and Dave Alciatore get only 12 or 11 or some other finite number?

You are aware, are you not, that the terms "cue ball center", "cue ball edge", "object ball edge", and "aim point {A,B,C}" only have meaning with respect to the line of sight from the player across the cue ball to the object ball? That they have no fixed meaning with, for example, the table's coordinate system? That if the player moves, say, six inches to one side, those points rotate with him?

 

[jsp]

Stan's basic CTE alignment described as

CB center to OB left edge, and CB left edge to point B on the OB

is used to align yourself for all left cut angles between 15 and 30 degrees, without regard to CB to OB distance. That is an infinite number of cut angles, though in practice once you get down to arc second differences you can probably quit distinguishing them. How do you and Dave Alciatore get only 12 or 11 or some other finite number?

You are aware, are you not, that the terms "cue ball center", "cue ball edge", "object ball edge", and "aim point {A,B,C}" only have meaning with respect to the line of sight from the player across the cue ball to the object ball? That they have no fixed meaning with, for example, the table's coordinate system? That if the player moves, say, six inches to one side, those points rotate with him?

Take BOTH the OB and CB and move them together an inch forward, backward, to the left, or to the right. Take your pick as long as the resulting cut angle stays between 15 and 30 degrees. Each CB/OB position has a different cut angle but yet has the EXACT SAME CB/OB alignment (remember you're moving the CB and OB together). How does the system differentiate between those shots?

 

[JB Cases]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. The above quote is a powerful statement for both the "naysayers" and the "yeasayers".

Laminated shafts, layered tips, etc. ARE advanced technology. CTE is too, imo. But....not everyone uses, nor feels the NEED to use various pieces of this "advance technology". Some use LD shafts, others use standard maple blanks. Some prefer layered tips, others prefer a single-layer tip. Some wish to use CTE, others some other aiming method. The difference is, the layered tip and laminated shaft people are NOT trying to make you believe that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. CTE is a good thing for many people, but not ALL people are going to need or prefer to use it, just like layered tips and LD shafts. I myself prefer LD (Predator) shafts, single-layered (Triangle) tips, and I couldn't tell you how in the hell I'm aiming at a ball if you were holding a knife to my mother's throat. Let's face it, people are gonna pick-n-choose what technological advances works best for THEM. Let's all quit trying to say that this or that is what EVERYBODY needs. Simply ain't true. And the naysayers just plain ought to give up on disproving the validity of CTE. Can't be disproven. If it's helped ONE single person, then there must be something to it (and I'm pretty sure it has helped more than one person).

Maniac (sittin' high atop the fence on this issue!!!)

Oh there's been plenty of debate over whether LD shafts are just gimmicks or not, same with layered tips, and now chalk.

What it really boils down to is that no matter what the issue is there will be some predominantly on one side and others predominantly on the other side and in the internet age they get their thrills out of arguing with barely any chance of coming to a common agreement.

It's sad really. I'd rather be addicted to drugs than addicted to my ego.

Some days I wish I had never learned any aiming systems. But I did and once you do you're changed forever as to how you look at pool. Hal didn't have to seek me out, I wasn't anti-aiming systems, I didn't participate in the discussions prior to 2002, which were more heated and acrimonious than these due to RSB having no moderation. But Hal did ask for me specifically and I met him and I started making balls from everywhere on that day in a way I had never been able to previously. So my life was changed as pertains to pool on that day.

Now I am addicted to making sure the haters don't get to instill doubt and fear into the readers without some form of rebuttal for the readers to consider.

Anyone who advocates CTE only wants people to try it. We don't care if you use it. We don't care if you knock it from a point of experience after trying it. At least you tried it.

I can't stand Predator shafts. But I know that Predator shafts work because I have tested them out AND I have been to their factory and seen the proof first hand. I hate the way they feel and so even though I know that they can benefit my game I choose not to use them. I would never knock Predator shafts as gimmicks with zero experience with them.

 

[AtLarge]

Stan's basic CTE alignment described as

CB center to OB left edge, and CB left edge to point B on the OB

is used to align yourself for all left cut angles between 15 and 30 degrees, without regard to CB to OB distance. That is an infinite number of cut angles, though in practice once you get down to arc second differences you can probably quit distinguishing them. How do you and Dave Alciatore get only 12 or 11 or some other finite number?

In your second line above, the first "left" should be "right."

jsp presents the dilemma simply and well in post #203. I'll try to explain it again in a different (and more contorted) way, John.

Dr. Dave has outlined what I'll call Stan's menu of shot alignments. This menu is shown under "CTE Version 4" here: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE. I don't recall that Stan attached any particular range of angles to each menu choice; Dr. Dave is just giving what seems reasonable to him for each alignment.

For a particular shot, the player must choose one of these alignment-menu items. He uses the location of the pocket to judge, by experience, which of the menu items will produce the best result. But let's ignore the intended pocket for a minute. Each of the menu items would produce some result, right? Let's do the same shot repetitively, choosing each of the alignments from the menu until we have exhausted all of the choices. Remember, the CB and OB are in exactly the same locations for each iteration. The menu gives us 11 ways to get to our final line of aim, so we'll hit the same shot 11 times and get 11 different cut angles, or OB tracks, in a fan shape.

If the intended pocket happens to be right on one of those 11 OB tracks, or close enough for pocket slop to save the day, then we'll make the shot on one of our trials. If the pocket is in the gap between two cut angles, we'll miss (absent adjustments somewhere in the process) on all 11 trials.

Now imagine moving the CB and OB to some other spots on the table, but keep the CB/OB separation the same. Again, we would choose one option from the menu for the real shot. But we have the same menu of choices as before. If we did all of them again, we'd get the same 11 cut angles in a fan shape. We might or might not make the shot with one of these angles, and, if we do, it might be by virtue of a different alignment choice than the "best" one for the first shot. But with the same CB/OB separation for the two shots, our limited number of choices on how to align the cue can produce only a limited number of cut angles.

If we change the CB/OB separation and repeat the trials, we may well get a different set of cut angles. I.e., a "B/left" at two feet may produce a different cut angle than does a "B/left" at six feet. So -- 11 angles from a given distance, 11 different angles from a different distance. But if the OB is at quite a distance from the pocket, 11 is just not enough cut angles for all possible shots with any chosen CB/OB separation.

You are aware, are you not, that the terms "cue ball center", "cue ball edge", "object ball edge", and "aim point {A,B,C}" only have meaning with respect to the line of sight from the player across the cue ball to the object ball? That they have no fixed meaning with, for example, the table's coordinate system? That if the player moves, say, six inches to one side, those points rotate with him?

Yes.

 

[JB Cases]

Take BOTH the OB and CB and move them together an inch forward, backward, to the left, or to the right. Take your pick as long as the resulting cut angle stays between 15 and 30 degrees. Each CB/OB position has a different cut angle but yet has the EXACT SAME CB/OB alignment (remember you're moving the CB and OB together). How does the system differentiate between those shots?

It gives you a slighty different CTE line in relation to the table. You cannot move the balls and have the same cut angle, therefore you don't have the same CTE line.

If you took the balls, stick and shooter and moved ALL of them over one inch then the object ball would be shot to a position one inch from the first place or the equivalent calculation based on distance.

But since you are changing only one variable, ball positions, then the shooter is free to find the CTE line that is correct for the shot.

CueTable Help

What do you see that is different between these two shots?

 

[pablocruz]

Stan's basic CTE alignment described as

CB center to OB left edge, and CB left edge to point B on the OB

is used to align yourself for all left cut angles between 15 and 30 degrees, without regard to CB to OB distance. That is an infinite number of cut angles, though in practice once you get down to arc second differences you can probably quit distinguishing them. How do you and Dave Alciatore get only 12 or 11 or some other finite number?

You are aware, are you not, that the terms "cue ball center", "cue ball edge", "object ball edge", and "aim point {A,B,C}" only have meaning with respect to the line of sight from the player across the cue ball to the object ball? That they have no fixed meaning with, for example, the table's coordinate system? That if the player moves, say, six inches to one side, those points rotate with him?

Did you mean to say CB center to OB right edge? Thank you for the post John!!

 

[JB Cases]

In your second line above, the first "left" should be "right."

jsp presents the dilemma simply and well in post #203. I'll try to explain it again in a different (and more contorted) way, John.

Dr. Dave has outlined what I'll call Stan's menu of shot alignments. This menu is shown under "CTE Version 4" here: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE. I don't recall that Stan attached any particular range of angles to each menu choice; Dr. Dave is just giving what seems reasonable to him for each alignment.

For a particular shot, the player must choose one of these alignment-menu items. He uses the location of the pocket to judge, by experience, which of the menu items will produce the best result. But let's ignore the intended pocket for a minute. Each of the menu items would produce some result, right? Let's do the same shot repetitively, choosing each of the alignments from the menu until we have exhausted all of the choices. Remember, the CB and OB are in exactly the same locations for each iteration. The menu gives us 11 ways to get to our final line of aim, so we'll hit the same shot 11 times and get 11 different cut angles, or OB tracks, in a fan shape.

If the intended pocket happens to be right on one of those 11 OB tracks, or close enough for pocket slop to save the day, then we'll make the shot on one of our trials. If the pocket is in the gap between two cut angles, we'll miss (absent adjustments somewhere in the process) on all 11 trials.

Now imagine moving the CB and OB to some other spots on the table, but keep the CB/OB separation the same. Again, we would choose one option from the menu for the real shot. But we have the same menu of choices as before. If we did all of them again, we'd get the same 11 cut angles in a fan shape. We might or might not make the shot with one of these angles, and, if we do, it might be by virtue of a different alignment choice than the "best" one for the first shot. But with the same CB/OB separation for the two shots, our limited number of choices on how to align the cue can produce only a limited number of cut angles.

If we change the CB/OB separation and repeat the trials, we may well get a different set of cut angles. I.e., a "B/left" at two feet may produce a different cut angle than does a "B/left" at six feet. So -- 11 angles from a given distance, 11 different angles from a different distance. But if the OB is at quite a distance from the pocket, 11 is just not enough cut angles for all possible shots with any chosen CB/OB separation.



Yes.

Using Stan's method as outlined on the DVD you have three choices, CTE+ETC, CTE+ETQ(quarter) and CTE+1/8th Not eleven or twelve choices. Cuts to the right have three, cuts to the left have three.

The variable here is the CTE line. It changes with every movement of the cue ball or object ball. As seen from the cueball that is. Thus the CTE line PLUS one of the supplementary SIGHTING lines is what makes the magic and dials you in. The CTE line handles any angle because it exists ONLY as a realtionship that comes into reality when two balls are there to define it. Move a ball, move both balls, and it changes to the new angle.

The secondary sighting line exists ONLY to help the shooter get really dialed in on the shot before putting the bridge hand down. It's a SIGHTING line not an aiming line. Aiming is what you do when you are down on the cue ball and preparing to shoot. You are aiming at whatever the cue tip is pointing towards.

Going all the way back to Dave Segal's videos. He says if you do it wrong then it will be OBVIOUSLY wrong, easy to see. But if you do it right then it will look right and feel right. And this is true.

The other day I did a video chat with someone and I was teaching him CTE using simple shots to the side like this.

CueTable Help

At one point he says ok remove the one and two balls and shoot the 3 into the corner. I did by reversing the CTE steps and using the CTE line on the other side of the ball. Then he said move both the three and the cueball over to this diagram

CueTable Help

I did and made both balls. For both shots I did the same steps - exactly the same.

(for the record I don't use Stan's method although I should)

Anyway, the CTE line and the secondary line are sighting lines not aiming lines. They work to get your body into alignment to the cb.

 

[jsp]

It gives you a slighty different CTE line in relation to the table. You cannot move the balls and have the same cut angle, therefore you don't have the same CTE line.

What does the table have anything to do with the CTE line? Sure if you move the CB/OB to the left or right, then that causes a parallel shift in the CTE line. But it's still the same CTE and alignment with respect to the CB and OB.

If you took the balls, stick and shooter and moved ALL of them over one inch then the object ball would be shot to a position one inch from the first place or the equivalent calculation based on distance.

But since you are changing only one variable, ball positions, then the shooter is free to find the CTE line that is correct for the shot.

CueTable Help

What do you see that is different between these two shots?

Can't you see that the orange and red lines are completely parallel to each other, and same goes for the blue and brown lines? That means that both shots have the EXACT SAME alignment.

Now why don't you draw the ghost ball lines for both shots. Are those parallel? Nope. That means that for the same alignment, you have to come up with two completely different final aim lines.

How does the system differentiate from the two shots, John? Please elaborate and be specific.

 

[JB Cases]

What does the table have anything to do with the CTE line? Sure if you move the CB/OB to the left or right, then that causes a parallel shift in the CTE line. But it's still the same CTE and alignment with respect to the CB and OB.


Can't you see that the orange and red lines are completely parallel to each other, and same goes for the blue and brown lines? That means that both shots have the EXACT SAME alignment.

Now why don't you draw the ghost ball lines for both shots. Are those parallel? Nope. That means that for the same alignment, you have to come up with two completely different final aim lines.

How does the system differentiate from the two shots, John? Please elaborate and be specific.

Of course I know that the red and orange lines are parallel - I used the grid function on CueTable to lay it out. Can you not see that the CTE lines for both shots are different? Thus a different CTE line WILL produce a different SHOT line for each shot. This satisfies the fact that both shots have a different PATH to the pocket and with a different GB position.

Each and every movement of the balls produces a DIFFERENT cte line. This is how the system adjust for different ball positions.

Again, and this bears repeating for the millionth time, I WISH you and the other people arguing this intellectually would simply take it to the table and then report back. I am assuming that you are not a liar and would give it a fair shot. I feel strongly that some of you are intellectually gifted enough to figure out what those of us without your education and training are not able to express on your terms if you would simply immerse yourselves in learning it for a little bit.

Be honest, wouldn't that be easier and possibly more fun than endlessly knocking it?

I assume that you are here because you like to play pool. If so then you must enjoy making the balls go in. Given the amount of time you have spent knocking this system it seems as if you could have spent a tiny fraction of that time actually learning to use it on the table. With even the tiniest sliver of a chance that you could learn something that improves your skill wouldn't it be worth it?

 

[jwpretd]

Somehow the images vanished out of this post. It has been reposted as #234 in this thread. - jwp

Take BOTH the OB and CB and move them together an inch forward, backward, to the left, or to the right. Take your pick as long as the resulting cut angle stays between 15 and 30 degrees. Each CB/OB position has a different cut angle but yet has the EXACT SAME CB/OB alignment (remember you're moving the CB and OB together). How does the system differentiate between those shots?

For an explanation of the 3D perspective images below, see the "A CTE test!" thread, post #209.

The shot shown in the left image has been moved forward about two inches directly toward the end rail to make the right image (Jal, I will be forever thankful for that table). No other change was made. In particular, the camera - which represents the player's eye(s) - was not moved, meaning that the player did not move. [Added later: On reviewing the original SketchUp drawing from which these images were made, it looks like I moved the CB+OB more like four inches rather than two as stated in the first sentence above. This does not affect the principle involved, and the cut is still within the 15-30 degree range. - jwp]

I left the old blue GB-OB-Pocket line in place in the right image to show how far the set up was moved down table, and to clearly indicate that the shot angle
changed. Notice the difference in the apparent paths of the CTE and Edge-to-B lines between the two images. In the left image the camera/player is looking directly along the Edge-to-B line (you can tell this because it is vertical on your screen - or, rather, it should be - it is on mine); in the right image, that is no longer true. The image on the right no longer shows the same "visuals" as the left image because the CB and OB have moved with respect to the player, thus causing the centers, edges, and aim point B to "rotate" from the player's perspective. Now, let us suppose that the player moves to bring his "visuals" back in order:

Now the player has the same "visuals" (in this case, is looking directly along the Edge-to-B line) that he had in the left image above. The cut angle is clearly not the same. The fact that the player had to move to restore his visual sight lines realigned him for the new cut angle. (It's probably not exactly the correct alignment for either shot, but that's an issue most likely related to trying to represent binocular vision with a monocular tool. It has no effect on the principle involved.)

This also answers jsp's question about moving the pocket.

NB: The above images do not address, nor are they intended to address, the issue of exactness, however that may, or may not, defined.

If you remain unconvinced that the above images correctly illustrate what happens with regard to cut angles and CB-OB-Pocket relationships, I would be happy to describe the simple experiments that I conducted with some cans and string before I started drawing all this crap. Then you could do them for yourselves and describe the conclusions, perhaps differing from mine, you might draw from them. I, at least, would be quite interested in reading those conclusions.

 

[jwpretd]

Did you mean to say CB center to OB right edge? Thank you for the post John!!

Yes, I did. Thank you very much for catching that. I will change the original.

 

[pablocruz]

[....................................

 

[jwpretd]

If Dr. Dave is correct (and I agree) that Stan's CTE prescription (if carried out with robotic precision) provides for exactly 6 cut angles in either direction for any given CB/OB separation [no math needed for agreeing or disagreeing with this]....
If you don't believe what I have just said, please explain exactly how Dr. Dave is incorrect, and how Stan's CTE prescription is actually arriving at the much higher number of cut angles needed to pocket all shots.

IF Dr. Dave says that, THEN Dr. Dave is incorrect. See post #234 in this thread.

 

[cookie man]

What does the table have anything to do with the CTE line? Sure if you move the CB/OB to the left or right, then that causes a parallel shift in the CTE line. But it's still the same CTE and alignment with respect to the CB and OB.


Can't you see that the orange and red lines are completely parallel to each other, and same goes for the blue and brown lines? That means that both shots have the EXACT SAME alignment.

Now why don't you draw the ghost ball lines for both shots. Are those parallel? Nope. That means that for the same alignment, you have to come up with two completely different final aim lines.

How does the system differentiate from the two shots, John? Please elaborate and be specific.

The blue and green lines (your cte lines) will not be parallel. The angle changes slightly so the ctel changes. You still do things the same, sight ctel and reference line, and go down on the shot. The system differentiates the two shots by the change in the ctel.

 

[jsp]

Each and every movement of the balls produces a DIFFERENT cte line. This is how the system adjust for different ball positions.

What about the below example? Instead of moving the CB/OB to the left or right, I moved it about two ball's widths forward. (There are two pages to the diagram, click on the <PageUp> and <PageDown> buttons on the lower-right corner to see the differences between the two shots.)

Same exact CTE line. What now?

CueTable Help

 

[jsp]

The blue and green lines (your cte lines) will not be parallel. The angle changes slightly so the ctel changes. You still do things the same, sight ctel and reference line, and go down on the shot. The system differentiates the two shots by the change in the ctel.

The CTE lines are parallel. If both CB and OB move exactly the same distance directly to the left, then the lines have to be parallel. There is no debate about this. Even JB said so. So now what?

 

[jsp]

The fact that the player had to move to restore his visual sight lines realigned him for the new cut angle.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Aren't they the exact same visual sight lines?

This also answers jsp's question about moving the pocket.

No it doesn't. Please elaborate.

 

[cookie man]

The CTE lines are parallel. If both CB and OB move exactly the same distance directly to the left, then the lines have to be parallel. There is no debate about this. Even JB said so. So now what?

There is a slightly different outside edge for each shot so they are not exactly parallel. If you can't shoot both balls with the same contact point then the ctel has to be different, however slight that may be.

 

[Mikjary]

Marco...Polo

Stan's basic CTE alignment described as

CB center to OB right [originally misstated as "left"] edge, and CB left edge to point B on the OB

is used to align yourself for all left cut angles between 15 and 30 degrees, without regard to CB to OB distance. That is an infinite number of cut angles, though in practice once you get down to arc second differences you can probably quit distinguishing them. How do you and Dave Alciatore get only 12 or 11 or some other finite number?

You are aware, are you not, that the terms "cue ball center", "cue ball edge", "object ball edge", and "aim point {A,B,C}" only have meaning with respect to the line of sight from the player across the cue ball to the object ball? That they have no fixed meaning with, for example, the table's coordinate system? That if the player moves, say, six inches to one side, those points rotate with him?

Keep going. You're starting to get warm.