Cte

[champ2107]

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

same ctel and looks like a B with a right pivot on the first and a left pivot on the second but im guessing. You also should clarify what cte system JB uses, because your mixing it in with Stans cte/pro1. JB uses feel instead of a reference point or secondary line and for him he most likely may have a new ctel.

 

[JB Cases]

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

I have a video that covers this exactly, the CTE line still changes with each new ball position. As you know each different ball position has a different Ghost Ball. Again you should try this on the table.

I am uploading the video to YouTube now. When it's done I will post the link.

 

[jsp]

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.

Strange, huh?

You know that the shots have different contact points, so you're simply assuming they must have different CTE lines. But they don't! By definition, the lines are parallel...as defined by the person who drew up the diagram (JB).

So if they have the same CTE lines, then they must have the same contact points, right? Well, clearly they don't.

I think you may be the first who is actually finally starting to "get it". Cheers to you.

 

[jsp]

I have a video that covers this exactly, the CTE line still changes with each new ball position. As you know each different ball position has a different Ghost Ball.

My example shows the exact same CTE line! How can you say that it has changed? Look at the blue line. Didn't move it one bit. Please explain.

 

[champ2107]

My example shows the exact same CTE line! How can you say that it has changed? Look at the blue line. Didn't move it one bit. Please explain.

I dont get a response? lol

 

[JB Cases]

My example shows the exact same CTE line! How can you say that it has changed? Look at the blue line. Didn't move it one bit. Please explain.

I understand your drawing. This is why I took it to the table months ago to see what happens. The CTE line changes as the balls get closer together. Do it on the table and you will see that I am right.

Here, I have a video called JSP's Test already on You Tube. This is the same thing that you posted months ago. I am sure you have seen this video but if not here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAOEywF8z3A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlefilh3MIo

 

[JB Cases]

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?

I didn't say the CTE lines are parallel, I said they are not parallel. Any time you move the balls to a different position then you get a different CTE line.

What you want to prove is that the pocket matters. Of course the pocket matters. It's unmoving which means that each different ball position has a different path to the pocket and as such a different CTE line.

But the shooter does not NEED to go stand behind the object ball and find a contact point.

Instead he sights the CTE line, uses the secondary line if needed (I don't) and goes into the shot. That's it. You can move the balls to any positions you want and it still works that easily.

Take it to the table.

 

[Mikjary]

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

No it doesn't. Please elaborate.

As the object ball moves forward or back in a player's field of vision, they must adjust their center to edge line, left or right. As the object ball proximity decreases (moves closer to the cue ball), they must turn to the left or right to gain the correct ctel. This new alignment, however small it may be, will be correct for the new angle.

With ghost ball, double the distance aiming, or any system, if the balls aren't falling off the table, the user must re-analyze their approach. After practicing with the basic parameters set forth (A,B, and C) for the system, a player can quickly learn to manipulate their visuals to adjust to a changing cue ball/object ball relationship.

When you walk up to a door knob, with a quick glance you can operate it successfully. Have you ever missed grabbing one, even if it's higher or lower than you're used to seeing? I don't think so, unless it's 4 AM Saturday night and you've been out with your buddies drinking.

The visual adjustment for each angle is processed from the static alignment and information the eyes are giving the mind. When we start talking about robotics, we don't need Cte. Pivot systems are a visually creative method of pocketing balls that rely heavily on a consistent starting alignment and initial aiming points to allow the brain to fine tune the physical movements necessary to gain the correct ball pocketing alignment. It may be called guessing by some, feel by others, but I agree with Stan who calls it a visual intelligence. The programming of this intelligence is the feedback gained from the consistent alignment which allows the user to narrow down his aiming delivery through experience.

These slight visual adjustments are necessary in all aiming systems as the position of the balls change on the table. For some shots, the process will be done easily and quickly. For others a long, hard look will be necessary to satisfy the brain that things are in alignment. Cte is one of the first systems that exploits the use of visual adjustments and alignments instead of a mechanical alignment method traditionally touted as the only way to pocket balls. There are other systems out there that do this, but are labeled as fringe methods, at best. We are just beginning to undertstand how these work, but are still stuck in the "Inquisition" period of pool. When we get past traditional views and stereotypical analysis, we will truly understand how to define "feel". Until then, black and white will be the fashion colors and the rest of the rainbow will be for the less knowledgeable, gullible, naive players who have found uses for the snake oil they bought.

Sorry for the superfluous bs to answer your query, but you did say elaborate.

Best,
Mike

 

[jsp]

I dont get a response? lol

You already admitted a few threads back that the system needs "adjustments" outside the system. So I thought I didn't have to convince you any further.

Alright, I'll respond to your post. Instead of moving the CB and OB forward two ball, move it only an inch...or move it arbitrarily small such that the "secondary alingments" don't change at all. That's possible right?

 

[champ2107]

Good Post MIke!!! :thumbup:

 

[jsp]

I understand your drawing. This is why I took it to the table months ago to see what happens. The CTE line changes as the balls get closer together.

No it doesn't. Did the blue line change? Isn't the blue line the CTE line for both shots? Easy enough question.

And who said that balls are getting closer together in my example? It's the same ball separation. What now?

 

[champ2107]

You already admitted a few threads back that the system needs "adjustments" outside the system. So I thought I didn't have to convince you any further.

Alright, I'll respond to your post. Instead of moving the CB and OB forward two ball, move it only an inch...or move it arbitrarily small such that the "secondary alingments" don't change at all. That's possible right?

Everyone agrees the system needs an adjustment on occasion? I thought we all agreed on this already?

 

[jsp]

I didn't say the CTE lines are parallel, I said they are not parallel.

Fine, you don't say the CTE lines are parallel, but now I say the lines are parallel. Draw up another example with the CTE lines completely parallel? Now what?

Mikjary, I gotta go, I'll respond to your post later.

 

[jwpretd]

This was originally posted as post #211 last night. Somehow the images vanished out of it; they were there when I last looked at it, but are gone now. So let's try again.

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.

 

[JB Cases]

Fine, you don't say the CTE lines are parallel, but now I say the lines are parallel. Draw up another example with the CTE lines completely parallel? Now what?

Mikjary, I gotta go, I'll respond to your post later.

Perception. What you draw in 2d space isn't what happens in 3d space. At least not according to my experience on this.

Gotta go though. You all have fun.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

jwpretd:
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.

Nonsense.

In effect, you've moved the table four inches without moving the balls or the shooter. The system-defined cut angle does not change (nor does the CTE line or any other CB/OB relationship), but the pocket has moved, so the shot no longer goes.

I'm astounded that so many on this forum can't visualize these very basic geometric facts or understand these very basic logical principles. If the spatial relationships of the shooter, CB and OB don't change, and you use the same "secondary aim line", then the system-defined cut angle does not change. If the cut angle is 45 degrees at one place on the table, then it will be 45 degrees everywhere else on the table too. And if you're at a place on the table where the pocket doesn't happen to be on that 45-degree line, you'll miss.

pj <- maybe something in the AzB water...
chgo

 

[Neil]

...............

 

[Neil]

...........

 

[Jal]

....
If you start out SIGHTING the CTE line and put your bridge hand down with the bridge slightly offset then the cue tip will naturally fall on the side of the cue ball. When the shooter then pivots or shifts slightly the cue tip is brought to center and from that position the tip is pointing to the GB center...

...The CTE instructons force the shooter to put their hand down where the bridge point becomes a point on the shot line. The reason this works in my opinion has to do with the fact that the CTE line and the GB line converge in the center of the CB and the divergence out the back and to the shooter's hand is so small that all it takes at the back of the cue ball to go from the CTE line to the shot line is the tiniest of shifts. I firmly believe that there is some perceptual reason that allows this to work well but also that there are physical principles at work which are as yet undefined.

Okay John, imagine that you need to cut the OB by 20 degrees for a center pocket make. As you say, the line from the ghostball through the center of the CB is in close proximity to the CTE line as they diverge from the rear of the CB. But now imagine the ghostball position if you should overcut it by 5 degrees. There's also line coming from the center of that ghostball through the center of the CB which is even closer to the CTE line. And for the heck of it, imagine undercutting the shot by 5 degrees. We now have a third ghostball with a line coming from it through the center of the CB.

So the shot line going through the correct ghostball is now surrounded by two lines coming from "false" ghostballs. All three lines are in close proximity to the CTE line as they radiate from the rear of the CB. What do you think there is in your procedure that would selectively cause you to place your bridge point down on the middle of those three candidate lines? And what if you needed to place it on the 15 or 25 degree ghostball lines instead?

You may say "well, I've memorized how far off of the CTE line I need to offset my bridge for different cut angles." That would be perfectly legitimate, but it's what we mean by "feel" and is not systematic in the same way, for instance, that fractional aiming is not systematic. With fractional aiming, you learn through experience/memorization how far to overlap the balls in order to send the OB in some direction. Here you've memorized the offset. Again, perfectly fine, but it's not systematic.

Another possibility is to use the same offset every time, but vary the pivot distance. But again, there is no simple straightforward systematic way to arrive at the correct pivot locations. You'd have to learn them through practice.

The reason our suspicions run toward you're using some aspect of ghostball directly (overlap, double the distance, matching contact points, or the entire ghostball itself), is that with the two methods just described, the offsets or pivot locations vary not only with cut angle, but with CB-OB separation as well. Unlike with ghostball, where the amount of overlap is a function only of cut angle, they're a function of two variables. You've got twice the number of things to absorb. Plus, in the case of pivoting, none of the descriptions of the CTE that I've seen even acknowledge the need to vary the pivot location with cut angle, when in fact it varies most with cut angle.

Jim

 

[Jal]

Using the reference lines described in Stan's video will pretty much force the player to put their bridge down in such a way that the bridge point is a point on the shot line, or in other words the GB center is the starting POINT - then the line extends to the CB center - then the line extends to the bridge POINT. So if you then put the cue down so that the tip is pointing at the cue ball center then by extension it it pointing at the GB center.

John, you come up with more new physics faster than they can write checks in Stockholm. There's rumors that, thanks to you, the Nobel trust fund is about to go under. (Shoots. I was about to cash in by applying CTE principles to enable NASA to strip their rockets of all of that expensive navigation and guidance equipment. Maybe you could just cool it for a while?)

And yes, you can rely on the lines used in Stan's dvd to accurately bring your bridge point to the shot line for any direct shot on the table.

Once your bridge is set then as Jwpred pointed out your cue could be taken out it's case and placed into your hands and it would be on the shot line.

So, you're saying that if I bend over and stare at some spot on the far wall, and if someone then places a long stick in my hands, I'll discover that, inexorably, it'll be pointing at that spot? I'll have try it and get a paper out to one the journals real quick.

As in your cue should be pointing at the cue ball a half-tip's width from center? Because that's what Stand says in his video for the pre-pivot position. The cue ball is an objective unmoving reference point, the tip width is clear to see.

Well, that's sort of at the core of the problem. You're trying to go from the salient features of the CB and OB, to the variable and not so salient features of the GB. It can be done with feel (memorization), but no other way.

So if you have this perfect geometry which provides you with such precision why do YOU fidget when you are down on the ball? I understand that geometry provides precise answers on paper. And if every person in the world could really "see" a perfect ghost ball sitting behind the object ball in perfect line with the pocket then we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact I would bet that MOST people if told you have 3 seconds to put one real ball behind another one in dead line to the pocket couldn't do it accurately even 50% of the time if there was any significant distance involved.

I don't disagree, but it's all we have.

Like you I can only do thought experiments in the absence of resources. The people with resources to do these experiments like Dave Alciatore aren't interested. You contention is wrong. There are no ghostball-like adjustments going on. Make or miss I use the CTE line and the steps as prescribed. Sometimes I literally do not know if I am truly right or not and just shoot the shot, focusing on my delivery.

Well, that's the acid test which seems to prove your point. You and others, Neil, for instance, have brought this up several times. I think I would accept it as such if the laws of geometry weren't violated in the process.

I don't have the time to respond to your other points. Somehow I doubt that you're groovin on what I've had to say thus far.

Jim