Cte

[scottjen26]

Chiming in again, guess I missed a few hundred posts over the weekend...

I was hoping some of the diagrams and shots posted would have generated more useful discussion, I'm still trying to figure out away from the table how this system resolves to the GB line - through "feel" or geometry. Still don't think I've come up with an answer to that, nor has anyone else unless I missed something.

Neil said something I could relate to at the bottom of page 18 or 19 I think. He showed two shots that were in similar positions but just moved slightly, and mentioned how you end up slightly shifting on the second one to pick up the secondary aim point, which of course changes the ultimate aim contact point after the pivot is performed. Maybe this is why I didn't really gravitate to the basic CTE stuff when I tried it years ago, I feel like the use of the secondary points really fine tunes my alignment on the shot and puts me in a perfect position to make the ball time after time. I'm willing to admit I don't know if this is exact or visual or feel based, and I can also say I don't really care since it's had a positive affect on my ball pocketing after a few short weeks of working with it.

Also as Neil said, at first this is a very mechanical process, and for someone like me I was questioning every alignment, trying to really see the lines, figuring out which pivot to use, etc. However, for me at least, within a few weeks I was able to integrate it into my game and pick up on the sight lines very quickly (not quite seamlessly yet but getting there). Still questioning things sometimes, and occasionally picking the wrong shot setup or not sighting properly or just plain making a bad stroke, but overall it's definitely been a positive thing for me, regardless of how it works.

I posted an exercise a while back, and Dave (spiderwebcomm) did something similar, where I set up a row of balls that varied by a few degrees each and shot each ball into the same pocket. As I progressed through the shots I used the same CTE line and had to occasionally change from one sight point to another, and from one pivot to another, as the shots got thinner. But for 3 - 5 of the shots in each range I was able to make shots that varied by 4 or 5 degress each with the same CTE line, sight line, and pivot direction. I still think there is something to this, since I took great care not to look up at the object ball or make any fine adjustments after sighting the lines and pivoting into position. The relationship between the CTE line and the sight line and the slight adjustments in body position that result from the perceived size, distance, and angle of the object ball is what must be responsible for dialing the shot. I think further experimentation and diagramming of these types of shots could help resolve exactly how CTE/Pro One does (or doesn't) resolve geometrically to the GB line.


Scott

 

[jsp]

Can i ask you this? If you and others do not know exactly whats in the system and how to apply it. How is it possible you, PJ and a couple others feel you actually can have an intelligent,civil debate about the system with people that know it and use it?

I have always contested that you cannot have a center pocket system without determining the contact point on the OB in one way or another. It's necessary to know the exact location of the pocket's center in order to shoot center pocket, and the contact point on the OB provides you with that information.

I've always had this understanding that the entire purpose for these CTE (or ETC or CTC) systems is that you don't have to visualize the contact point since doing so is supposedly difficult to do accurately (but it's a piece of cake divvying up the CB/OB into quarters and eighths, but that's besides the point). Instead, all you need are the "absolute" visual reference points, such as the edge or center of the CB/OB (quarters/eighths too?) for these systems to work.

So it is my assumption that CTE/Pro1 doesn't require you to determine the precise contact point of the OB as part of the system. If the system does explicitly require the use of contact points, then I sincerely apologize and as a penance I'll purchase the DVD to find out for myself exactly how the system utilizes contact points as part of the system.

But if the system does NOT use contact points, then someone still has to tell me exactly how you know an adjustment is needed if the pocket moves an inch (or if the pocket stays put and the CB/OB move an inch together in the same direction). It's impossible unless you take the precise location of the pocket into consideration for each and every shot, even with the exact same CTEL and secondary alignments. If determining the contact point isn't involved at all in that process, then I don't know how you can describe it as anything other than feel.

 

[Mikjary]

I have always contested that you cannot have a center pocket system without determining the contact point on the OB in one way or another. It's necessary to know the exact location of the pocket's center in order to shoot center pocket, and the contact point on the OB provides you with that information.

I've always had this understanding that the entire purpose for these CTE (or ETC or CTC) systems is that you don't have to visualize the contact point since doing so is supposedly difficult to do accurately (but it's a piece of cake divvying up the CB/OB into quarters and eighths, but that's besides the point). Instead, all you need are the "absolute" visual reference points, such as the edge or center of the CB/OB (quarters/eighths too?) for these systems to work.

So it is my assumption that CTE/Pro1 doesn't require you to determine the precise contact point of the OB as part of the system. If the system does explicitly require the use of contact points, then I sincerely apologize and as a penance I'll purchase the DVD to find out for myself exactly how the system utilizes contact points as part of the system.

But if the system does NOT use contact points, then someone still has to tell me exactly how you know an adjustment is needed if the pocket moves an inch (or if the pocket stays put and the CB/OB move an inch together in the same direction). It's impossible unless you take the precise location of the pocket into consideration for each and every shot, even with the exact same CTEL and secondary alignments. If determining the contact point isn't involved at all in that process, then I don't know how you can describe it as anything other than feel.

You might say you are actually picking out your contact point as you visualize the reference points. Just not in your diagrammable, everything in its place, doing the math...process. Your eyes give your body the inputs to place it on the correct aiming line. The actual computations are done unseen because you have established a consistent starting point as a benchmark. The angle recognition becomes an automatic process through practice as with any aiming system.

Moving the pocket is the same as moving a ball. You're just changing the angle and the visuals adjust accordingly. You can visually change your alignment to direct balls anywhere on the table to make kicks, combos or banks. You first have to be willing to understand you are using your eyes to align your body correctly. Using a visual platform for angle recognition enables a user to discern an infinite number of contact points. Just like Stan said. This is limited by individual talent, desire, and the need to diagram the creative process to fit neatly in the box.

The standard reply is that, that doesn't give me the answer to my question. Actually it does. You just need to change the inputs to solve the problem. Or better yet, take a different path, get some answers and then find a link to your original query. When you ask the right questions, we can all find some common ground in the research. Quit asking the same ones, reheated. The answers won't change.

Best,
Mike

 

[Jal]

....So it is my assumption that CTE/Pro1 doesn't require you to determine the precise contact point of the OB as part of the system. If the system does explicitly require the use of contact points, then I sincerely apologize and as a penance I'll purchase the DVD to find out for myself exactly how the system utilizes contact points as part of the system.

Jsp, there is no mention of contact points being used as part of the system (a fellow poster sent me his copy of the DVD). I've only viewed it a few times, but I don't recall seeing any adjustments prescribed, such as overall body position, as the cut angle changes over a range of angles employing the same edge-to-{A,B,C, etc.}. The only references mentioned are the CTE line and the edge-to-whatever.

But if the system does NOT use contact points, then someone still has to tell me exactly how you know an adjustment is needed if the pocket moves an inch (or if the pocket stays put and the CB/OB move an inch together in the same direction). It's impossible unless you take the precise location of the pocket into consideration for each and every shot, even with the exact same CTEL and secondary alignments. If determining the contact point isn't involved at all in that process, then I don't know how you can describe it as anything other than feel.

You're right, of course, but good luck in trying to pry out an acknowledgment. If the validity of CTE could be shown to depend on one's mother being a pig, you'd hear a lot of oinking going on around here.

Jim

 

[champ2107]

JSP

I have always contested that you cannot have a center pocket system without determining the contact point on the OB in one way or another. It's necessary to know the exact location of the pocket's center in order to shoot center pocket, and the contact point on the OB provides you with that information.

The system you are shown on the dvd will put you on the contact point on the ob and we don't know how and you know this! Apparently it's not necessary to know the exact location of the pockets center in order to shoot center pocket you also know this. You have been in these cte threads long enough to know this and spiderweb even made a video with the pocket blocked to show this exact point.

I've always had this understanding that the entire purpose for these CTE (or ETC or CTC) systems is that you don't have to visualize the contact point since doing so is supposedly difficult to do accurately (but it's a piece of cake divvying up the CB/OB into quarters and eighths, but that's besides the point). Instead, all you need are the "absolute" visual reference points, such as the edge or center of the CB/OB (quarters/eighths too?) for these systems to work.

Silly point you are trying to make here.

So it is my assumption that CTE/Pro1 doesn't require you to determine the precise contact point of the OB as part of the system. If the system does explicitly require the use of contact points, then I sincerely apologize and as a penance I'll purchase the DVD to find out for myself exactly how the system utilizes contact points as part of the system.

It doesn't require you to determine the precise contact point of the OB, the system will put you on that precise contact point when executed properly. This is the purpose of the system.

But if the system does NOT use contact points, then someone still has to tell me exactly how you know an adjustment is needed if the pocket moves an inch (or if the pocket stays put and the CB/OB move an inch together in the same direction). It's impossible unless you take the precise location of the pocket into consideration for each and every shot, even with the exact same CTEL and secondary alignments. If determining the contact point isn't involved at all in that process, then I don't know how you can describe it as anything other than feel.

Of course the system uses contact points but you're not getting to them in the traditional way everyone is used too, you are doing it using a system of visuals and lines. You have to get off this pocket moving thing also!!

 

[champ2107]

Jsp, there is no mention of contact points being used as part of the system (a fellow poster sent me his copy of the DVD). I've only viewed it a few times, but I don't recall seeing any adjustments prescribed, such as overall body position, as the cut angle changes over a range of angles employing the same edge-to-{A,B,C, etc.}. The only references mentioned are the CTE line and the edge-to-whatever.

You're right, of course, but good luck in trying to pry out an acknowledgment. If the validity of CTE could be shown to depend on one's mother being a pig, you'd hear a lot of oinking going on around here.

Jim

You decided to finally inform yourself, good man and hopefully we will have less and less of these silly post :thumbup:

 

[jwpretd]

Moving the pocket is the same as moving a ball. You're just changing the angle and the visuals adjust accordingly.

Mike,

I finally understood jsp's question about moving the pocket; somebody posted an image that made it clear. I even had a note about it from something in the banking section of the DVD I didn't understand. Just didn't realize it was the same thing.

When jsp said "move the pocket" he didn't mean "moving a ball". He meant moving, in effect, both balls laterally the same small amount. My note just says "?? balls --> X/Y same align??", but I think what I meant was roughly "What happens if you move both balls along the X or Y axis enough to change the angle to the pocket by a few degrees but not enough to change the alignment instructions?". Moving the pocket has the same effect (and is a clever way to think about it, especially if you generalize it to moving the shot's target, whatever it may be).

It's a good question.

 

[champ2107]

Mike,

I finally understood jsp's question about moving the pocket; somebody posted an image that made it clear. I even had a note about it from something in the banking section of the DVD I didn't understand. Just didn't realize it was the same thing.

When jsp said "move the pocket" he didn't mean "moving a ball". He meant moving, in effect, both balls laterally the same small amount. My note just says "?? balls --> X/Y same align??", but I think what I meant was roughly "What happens if you move both balls along the X or Y axis enough to change the angle to the pocket by a few degrees but not enough to change the alignment instructions?". Moving the pocket has the same effect (and is a clever way to think about it, especially if you generalize it to moving the shot's target, whatever it may be).

It's a good question.

i said to him he finally you came up with a good question the other day

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

I didn't say that body alignment and position is not important. I said that it can't be part of an aiming system. It can and should be part of a pre shot routine (execution). An aiming system gives you the aiming line where your cue should end up. Of course your stance forms around that aiming line, but this is an individual part outside of the system. It's part of your personal technique that an aiming system shouldn't interfere with. But I guess the pivot already messes it up, so why not go one step further...?
Whatever. I don't have the DVD, so I can only refer to what I read on this forum. Is Dr. Dave's summary of reference points incorrect or incomplete? Does it matter? Because you claimed that even basic CTE was exact before the DVD was out. Back then there were only two categories: thick and thin shots. So the problem applies to CTE as well as to Pro One. How could you make any shot with basic CTE if only Pro One fills in the blanks?

 

[Mikjary]

I didn't say that body alignment and position is not important. I said that it can't be part of an aiming system. It can and should be part of a pre shot routine (execution). An aiming system gives you the aiming line where your cue should end up. Of course your stance forms around that aiming line, but this is an individual part outside of the system. It's part of your personal technique that an aiming system shouldn't interfere with. But I guess the pivot already messes it up, so why not go one step further...?
Whatever. I don't have the DVD, so I can only refer to what I read on this forum. Is Dr. Dave's summary of reference points incorrect or incomplete? Does it matter? Because you claimed that even basic CTE was exact before the DVD was out. Back then there were only two categories: thick and thin shots. So the problem applies to CTE as well as to Pro One. How could you make any shot with basic CTE if only Pro One fills in the blanks?

I didn't mean to imply you thought body position or alignment wasn't important. I was trying to convey the idea that Cte is unlike most other systems that show you where to hit the object ball/contact point. It is structured by visually giving information to the body to naturally assume an aiming alignment. This is a sticking point when the debate surfaces about Cte/Pro One not being an aiming system without aiming at a contact point.

It sets up your physical alignment as a baseline through visual feedback. This criterion is is the first step towards a player trusting and taking advantage of the method. Once gained, the preshot routine teaches the eyes to repeat the successful ball pocketing setup.

Before the dvd came out, limited info was available publicly for known reasons. Cte and Pro One stand alone as systems. I can use either one independently, or any other off shoot or sister pivot system. I'm not familiar with Same Aim, yet.

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

Mike,

I finally understood jsp's question about moving the pocket; somebody posted an image that made it clear. I even had a note about it from something in the banking section of the DVD I didn't understand. Just didn't realize it was the same thing.

When jsp said "move the pocket" he didn't mean "moving a ball". He meant moving, in effect, both balls laterally the same small amount. My note just says "?? balls --> X/Y same align??", but I think what I meant was roughly "What happens if you move both balls along the X or Y axis enough to change the angle to the pocket by a few degrees but not enough to change the alignment instructions?". Moving the pocket has the same effect (and is a clever way to think about it, especially if you generalize it to moving the shot's target, whatever it may be).

It's a good question.

Yes, John, it is a good question. Dr. Dave diagrammed it sometime ago and asked in a similar way. My response was not meant to make light of his (JSP) idea, but rather to turn the topic away from the direction it was headed for unselfish reasons. As a user of the system, I am trying to fill in the blanks in an overall approach. I feel if the right concepts are brought forth, JSP will be more productive in his research.

He has hit on the Achille's Heel of previous discussions, but it's obvious some of Stan's instruction has not been understood. I feel these ideas can be explained by either gaining experience with the system or trying to work on Cte/Pro One concepts like, "visual intelligence". Acceptance has been slow. This is a tough crowd. :wink:

Best,
Mike

 

[LAMas]

Put the OB touching the CB at CTE and the secondary aiming at the center of the OB “B” and the visual is obvious. Move the OB away from the CB and it appears smaller, so starting at the CTE line (CTEL), the center of the OB will also appear to be smaller distance from the CTEL. Although the distance from the CTEL to the secondary aim point “B” (1/2 ball) when the CB and OB are touching is 1.125 inches, it will be ½ of that at 3 feet or .625 in. and ¼ of that at 6 feet or .3125 in.

If one wants to keep one’s bridge at his normal distance behind the CB, say 12 in., then one must adjust the side shift of the cue from the center of the CB to achieve the same cut angle. If the separation between the CB and OB is 3 feet, with the ½ cue tip offset from the center of the CB pre-pivot, then the1/2 cue tip offset will be a bit less than that if the separation is 6 feet – to achieve the same cut angle.

The side shift of the cue pre-pivot for separations from 3 feet to 6 feet is so small that it is in the noise of incremental slight errors of the perception of the secondary aim point due to errors attributed to parallax views.

The side shift for distances less than 3 feet would be greater than ½ tip to one tip for say 2 feet or ¼ of the CB for say 1 foot. I will try to resolve this in ACAD.

I hold that CTE aiming and it’s derivatives are exponential at close separations between the CB and OB, similar to how double distance and 90-90 aiming are affected.

So for the same cut angle for distances 3 feet and greater, the secondary aim points may only vary a degree or so. This would make CTE aiming useful. I will try to solve the actual angular delta in ACAD.

If I am out of line, please advise.

 

[jwpretd]

... As a user of the system, I am trying to fill in the blanks in an overall approach.... t's obvious some of Stan's instruction has not been understood. I feel these ideas can be explained by either gaining experience with the system or trying to work on Cte/Pro One concepts like, "visual intelligence".

Yes, and yes. Well, except that I don't use the system - I haven't physically been able to play for more than a few minutes at once for some months, and that's likely to continue to be the case for a while. Which is annoying, but does give me a lot of free time to look into how the various systems really work. And almost all of them interest me in one way or another.

 

[jwpretd]

LAMas, I think that's likely to be a very productive direction to take.

One thing I can tell you is that if you project the CTEL down to the plane of the table (i.e., directly along the z-axis), then it and ghost ball line (CB-GB) are not very far apart, even at fairly large cut angles.

Also, while the amount of separation changes as the cut angle changes, it doesn't change very much - maybe a couple of degrees for a 10-degree separation (it's not easy to get lines exactly where you want them with SketchUp). At normal bridge lengths, a couple of degrees doesn't span very much horizontal distance.

Possibly useful background information that you may already know: With 20/20 vision, you can resolve about one arc minute - which is something under 2mm at 20 feet. What that means is that if two lines are 2mm apart, you can see them as separate lines at 20 feet. Now that's actual drawn lines; it doesn't say anything about visualized ones, but it might be useful to remember.

It also doesn't say anything about detecting angular differences and changes (especially visualized ones), but we know humans are quite good at that (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6bKbqSdNEc).

It'll be really interesting to see what your results are.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you and others do not know exactly whats in the system and how to apply it. How is it possible you, PJ and a couple others feel you actually can have an intelligent,civil debate about the system with people that know it and use it?

We do know "what's in the system and how to apply it". You don't. We're asking questions so you'll learn the answers.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

jwpretd:
I finally understood jsp's question about moving the pocket

champ2107:
i said to him he finally you came up with a good question the other day

That question has been asked, very explicitly, over and over for more than 10 years. You just finally understood it (maybe; I'm not convinced yet). If so, I think you broke your speed record for understanding something.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yes, John, it is a good question. Dr. Dave diagrammed it sometime ago and asked in a similar way.

It's not a new question. It's the very same question that has been asked repeatedly since Hal Houle's x-angle systems started to emerge on the internet more than ten years ago.

The nonsense excuses given by system users ("rotating edges", etc.) haven't changed either.

...it's obvious some of Stan's instruction has not been understood.

Yeah, system users misunderstand it. They think there are instructions there that don't actually exist.

I feel these ideas can be explained by either gaining experience with the system or trying to work on Cte/Pro One concepts like, "visual intelligence".

Better known as "feel".

pj
chgo

 

[jsp]

That question has been asked, very explicitly, over and over for more than 10 years.

I don't doubt that at all for one second.

I just started getting involved in these threads the past few weeks. It was mind-boggling for me to find out how many posters were either completely unaware or simply didn't understand (most likely the latter) the most basic counterexample against these systems claiming to "center pocket" or "exact" that are obviously not.

My participation in these threads have been somewhat of a game for me. How many times do I have to reiterate the argument or package it up in a slightly different way for it to finally sink in with some posters. It seems that after several weeks and numerous repetitions and variations, a few posters are finally starting to get it. Yet, there are those who simply refuse to accept reality.

 

[champ2107]

That question has been asked, very explicitly, over and over for more than 10 years? You just finally understood it (maybe; I'm not convinced yet). If so, I think you broke your speed record for understanding something.

pj
chgo

This is the question thats been asked for more then 10 years >>"What happens if you move both balls along the X or Y axis enough to change the angle to the pocket by a few degrees but not enough to change the alignment instructions?

The answer is your body alignment will change, with the new visual. You are not standing directly behind the cue ball, you are offset, remember. Do we agree with this PJ,jsp?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This is the question thats been asked for more then 10 years >>"What happens if you move both balls along the X or Y axis enough to change the angle to the pocket by a few degrees but not enough to change the alignment instructions?

You're right! Be still, my heart.

The answer is your body alignment will change, with the new visual. You are not standing directly behind the cue ball, you are offset, remember.

Back to normal - this "answer" is nonsense. The system gives no instruction to change your body alignment. The only reason you would make such an off-system change is because your "aiming intuition" tells you to.

...not enough to change the alignment instructions
...body alignment will change, with the new visual

If there is no change in the alignment instructions, how is there a "new visual"?

pj <- like talking to a brick
chgo