Cte

[jsp]

First shot is CTE and the A line. Second shot is CTE and the B line. both left pivots. See, there is a very simple solution. If you bothered to ever try it on a table, you would know that your little problem is no problem at all.

See post #229 above. Just move the CB/OB small enough in the same direction such the secondary aim line doesn't change. Same CTE and secondary aim lines, different GB lines. Now what?

From cookie_man's lack of response, I think he finally got it. :thumbup:

 

[jsp]

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.

For the first example I gave that moves the CB/OB laterally (left or right), the OB proximity doesn't change (both are same distance away from you). The CTE line simply moves laterally with the CB/OB. What exactly changes that gives a different aim line from one position to the other?

 

[champ2107]

See post #229 above. Just move the CB/OB small enough in the same direction such the secondary aim line doesn't change. Same CTE and secondary aim lines, different GB lines. Now what?

From cookie_man's lack of response, I think he finally got it. :thumbup:

This is a good question you have finally come up with that takes a bit of thought now. Hey stop saying "now what?" lol :thumbup:

 

[cookie man]

See post #229 above. Just move the CB/OB small enough in the same direction such the secondary aim line doesn't change. Same CTE and secondary aim lines, different GB lines. Now what?

From cookie_man's lack of response, I think he finally got it. :thumbup:

Some people actually play pool.

 

[jsp]

This is a good question you have finally come up with that takes a bit of thought now. Hey stop saying "now what?" lol :thumbup:

Seems like champ is finally getting it too. Kudos. :thumbup:

 

[cookie man]

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.

I get it but your not quite there. If they have the same contact point then they have the same ctel. This is what matters. If the contact point is different than the ctel is different, regardless of any parallel lines, ball movement or anything else. I don't think this will ever be simple to explain on a computer but if you went to a table and played around with it you would see more clearly.

 

[Mikjary]

For the first example I gave that moves the CB/OB laterally (left or right), the OB proximity doesn't change (both are same distance away from you). The CTE line simply moves laterally with the CB/OB. What exactly changes that gives a different aim line from one position to the other?

When the angles change with any system, a new aiming alignment is required. This is a given. When you continue to get false proofs or unsubstantiated results, what do you do? Change your inputs or values? Get a fresh perspective?

I answered your question, but you insist on being a Philadelphia lawyer and try to lead this thread into admitting the math just doesn't jive. During this march, you've dismissed the anecdotal evidence because it isn't tied up with a nice bow on top. I've been reading these posts and just wish some of this brain power and experience could be applied to dissecting the user claims with an analysis of the visual information brought forth instead of trying to figure out why some people like red instead of blue as their favorite color with geometry.

Cte/Pro One is, as stated by its initiating proponent and leading instructor, Stan Shuffett, a highly VISUAL system. We are tapping into areas here that were previously just rumored about and dismissed. An excursion into the application of these systems may prove more valuable to a researcher than all the combined posts in these threads. After a period of time the antagonist may be able to answer his own questions and shed light on previously dismissed information.

Math is the basis for just about everything we do, IMO. But if you can't get the results you need, review the information available. For instance...read the second part of my previous post. BTW, you're welcome for some more of my elaboration on this subject. :grin:

Best,
Mike

 

[Neil]

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

 

[champ2107]

Seems like champ is finally getting it too. Kudos. :thumbup:

How can you say im finally getting it, all i said was you finally came up with a good question lol

 

[LAMas]

When the angles change with any system, a new aiming alignment is required. This is a given. When you continue to get false proofs or unsubstantiated results, what do you do? Change your inputs or values? Get a fresh perspective?

I answered your question, but you insist on being a Philadelphia lawyer and try to lead this thread into admitting the math just doesn't jive. During this march, you've dismissed the anecdotal evidence because it isn't tied up with a nice bow on top. I've been reading these posts and just wish some of this brain power and experience could be applied to dissecting the user claims with an analysis of the visual information brought forth instead of trying to figure out why some people like red instead of blue as their favorite color with geometry.

Cte/Pro One is, as stated by its initiating proponent and leading instructor, Stan Shuffett, a highly VISUAL system. We are tapping into areas here that were previously just rumored about and dismissed. An excursion into the application of these systems may prove more valuable to a researcher than all the combined posts in these threads. After a period of time the antagonist may be able to answer his own questions and shed light on previously dismissed information.

Math is the basis for just about everything we do, IMO. But if you can't get the results you need, review the information available. For instance...read the second part of my previous post. BTW, you're welcome for some more of my elaboration on this subject. :grin:

Best,
Mike

Mike,
Good info in your posts. They are not so much about CTE and it's derivatives, but address the discipline required to master any aiming system. Time at the table is required to memorize the cut angles that are the result of each set up. Even the straight in and CTE 30 degree cut are often missed, but one knows that they should go in all the time.

Double distance aiming needs to be studied when the cut angles are over 30 degrees and/or when the CB and OB are very close together; Fractional /CP-CP aiming is affected by parallax for you and your eyes are not centered over the CB; 90-90 requires different bridge distances behind the CB. For most, potting balls isn't trivial and for many not worth the investment of time or interest.

Reading all of these threads has convinced me that spatial comprehension is not universal and those that have it are at an advantage; those that have a digital mind (either a 1 or 0) have an advantage over those that have an analog mind (within an amplitude). except when it comes to debating.

To me CTE and Pro are analog and without defined cut angles derived from aiming after CTE for the secondary aim points 1/8, A, B, C and 1/8, these visuals cannot be the Rosetta Stone from which one can adjust for the other cut angles that are almost infinite....unless one moves off of these points in micro increments. These icrements are not yet proffered.

Saying that CTE is all about the visuals is not enough for me being a digital kind of guy.:wink::thumbup:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

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.

I mostly agree with this, except for the highlighted part. I don't know if "visually creative" means anything.

It may be called guessing by some, feel by others, but I agree with Stan who calls it a visual intelligence.

It sure walks and quacks like feel. Snazzy new name though.

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.

"Programming through experience"... hmmm...

Cte is one of the first systems that exploits the use of visual adjustments and alignments instead of a mechanical alignment method

What's the difference between the two methods mentioned in the highlighted part above?

pj
chgo

 

[Mikjary]

I mostly agree with this, except for the highlighted part. I don't know if "visually creative" means anything.


It sure walks and quacks like feel. Snazzy new name though.


"Programming through experience"... hmmm...


What's the difference between the two methods mentioned in the highlighted part above?

pj
chgo

PJ...ask the question. Don't beat around the bush. At the risk of a semantics debate, you can call it feel, or touch, or anything that defines it as not being proven mathematically. Why has diagramming failed to categorize its application on the many different angles we see?

I prefer to search for information why instead of how. That will give me the answer to how. Why does it work for different shots with like alignments? Putting it in a broad stroke, matter of fact listing of "feel", denigrates the system. No further research is needed with this impression. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...How strong is it when your eyes are in the right place on every shot? Whether you use Cte or any other similar non-pivot system, your game will leap forward.

Stan calls it a natural way of aiming. He is inferring it is not rooted in the totally mechanical genre of traditional aiming systems. It has alignment steps, but frees up the user's spatial recognizance after an initial alignment. This natural progression can be developed to a point with Pro One where even the thought of a pivot is long forgotten with practice. I have to stop and think about using a pivot because it becomes so second nature. No altered alignment caused by my pivot, as some complain, and no unnecessary movements out of an alignment. Just a strong pre-shot routine and straight into the shot. Go ahead and label that.

I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong or off base with your conclusions about Cte/Pro One. I really don't shive a git. I, for one, am disappointed in the posture you took about trying the system to garner support for your possible review. Then quickly, as if reading from a pre-written report, summarily dismissed it as "feel", and started to question all users as genetically predisposed to a limited intelligence. You've become the Lex Luthor of aiming systems. :shakehead:

Best,
Mike

 

[jsp]

Look at the diagram. I believe this is what you are talking about, making the one and the 3. I gave most of it away here, if you want the full explanation, go buy the DVD. Hint: Your CTE line remains the same, your other line doesn't as you can see. If you try it on the table, you will immediately see what you have to do, and why. THEN your answer will be clear to you, and you will see why you are wrong about the shot.

edit: the lines drawn are not the way you aim it, but for illustration purposes. If you know how to aim it, then the lines shown represent the same problem.

You come up with this shot, and think you have found proof that it can't possibly work as stated. All you have done is shown that you still, after all these posts, don't get it. Actually, you really don't even a clue how it works. You are spending so much time trying to disprove it, when you could have spent five minutes on a table with this shot and immediately seen where you went wrong. Instead, you spent a lot more than 5 minutes showing how little you do know about it.

CueTable Help

No Neil, that diagram is not what I'm talking about. You're not moving the CB along with the OB. I specifically stated that you have to move the CB and OB together, by the exact same amount.

And you're right about me not having a clue how CTE can provide different shot lines for the example I gave (remember, you're moving BOTH the CB and OB forward by an arbitarily small distance). I'm looking for an answer. If you have one, then I'm all ears.

 

[jsp]

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.

I don't disagree with what you say here.

 

[Neil]

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

 

[AtLarge]

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. ...

Perhaps you haven't really spent enough time with Stan's CTE as opposed to John's CTE. You seem to be forgetting that each of the above can be used with either a right or a left pivot.

Perhaps you'll believe Spidey. Here's how he enumerated the shot alignments two months ago: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2833281&postcount=200. He lists 12 -- 6 left and 6 right. If two of those are both essentially "straight," then the total would really be 11.

 

[Neil]

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

 

[AtLarge]

Neil -- the two shots you have pictured in post #255 are, indeed, good for discussion, because you have kept the distance between the CB and OB the same for the two shots, and you have identified them as both requiring alignment-menu choice "C/Right."

I did just as you requested on a pool table. I also went a step further and actually shot both set-ups a number of times without the ghost balls in place. My results were as follows. For shot #2 (OB where the 2-ball is in your picture and CB "B"), I got good results -- the final cue alignment line looked straight to the ghost ball and I pocketed the shot more times than I missed when the GB was removed. But for shot #1 (OB where the 1-ball is in your picture and CB "A"), I got poor results -- the final cue alignment line seemed to be to the right of center on the GB and I undercut the shot every time I hit it without the GB.

But your two shots are perfect for the question I, jsp, and others have been asking right along. If the CB/OB separation (distance between them) is the same for both shots, and you do everything the same physically in your set up / alignment for the two shots, why would you not get the same cut angle in both cases -- pretty much as I did in my trials, rather than as you said would happen? And please don't just say the CTEL changed because the two shot positions changed. As you said, forget about the pocket for a minute. Imagine we are facing an infinitely large table bed with no pockets or rails and we have the same two shots. We choose "C/Right" alignments for both. Why should we not expect them to produce the same cut angles rather than the two different cut angles needed for the two shots in your illustration?

I think the two cut angles needed for your two shots are about 36 degrees for shot #1 and 30 degrees for shot #2. This is just based on holding a protractor up to the screen, so both measurements could be off a degree or two. But shot #1 clearly needs a thinner hit than shot #2, unless the OB's are so close to the pocket that pocket slop handles the difference.

If you were to re-do this experiment with the OB's farther from the pocket, but still with the same CB/OB separation and the same alignment-menu choice for both shots, I think you might find that you have considerable difficulty pocketing both of them.

 

[JB Cases]

Perhaps you haven't really spent enough time with Stan's CTE as opposed to John's CTE. You seem to be forgetting that each of the above can be used with either a right or a left pivot.

Perhaps you'll believe Spidey. Here's how he enumerated the shot alignments two months ago: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2833281&postcount=200. He lists 12 -- 6 left and 6 right. If two of those are both essentially "straight," then the total would really be 11.

THis is the relevant part:

LEFT CUTS:

Aim point A: Thick cut angles
Aim point B: Thin cut angles
Aim point 1/8: VERY thin cut angles

RIGHT CUTS:

Aim point C: Thick cut angles
Aim point B: Thin cut angles
Aim point 1/8: VERY thin cut angles

3 sighting lines which work for every angle. The decision of whether it's a left or right pivot is apparent with not much practice.

For example you have a shot which you can make either into the side or into the corner with a right cut. You would use one sighting line for the cut to the corner and one for the cut to the side - both shots would be a left pivot.

Now you have a shot that you can shoot into either corner. Left Cut is a right pivot, Right Cut is a left pivot.

The rule I use is that the side of the ball which I am lining up to for the CTE line determines the pivot, when using Stan's basic CTE method.

IOW a cut to the right is using the left edge of the object ball so it's left/left. SOME shots work with either side but in order to avoid confusion I just use the side that is farthest away from the pocket.

Also I use no secondary aiming line and always pivot from the same side. However I can use Stan's method and when I do I pivot from the right or left as the shot calls for it.

The thing to remember is that Stan's lines are not CUE aiming lines. They are sighting lines to help the player get his body into a position to place the bridge hand which then determines the final cue position.

Anyway, I will leave the science up to you. If you think that Stan's methods just can't possibly work for just about every shot on the table then no amount of talking about it will convince you. Either you try it and see for yourself or you don't.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB:
3 sighting lines which work for every angle.

By your and Spidey's own count, 3 sighting lines which work for 6 angles. I think 6 is considerably less than "every".

pj
chgo