Determining left / right inside or outside pivots or sweeps

[Patrick Johnson]

Or you can properly learn CTE and do the pivots as prescribed by the system without judgement.

I know you believe this is true, and more power to you in your aiming progress with that belief.

But here's the "alternative fact": It's impossible to even choose the A/B/C aimpoint "without judgment".

pj
chgo

And you've been pushing alternative bullshit for 20 something years and been wrong.
It is what it is and if you ever decide to REALLY LEARN CTE then maybe you could understand better.

I'm pretty sure we just don't agree on what "judgment" means. You seem to think that once you get good enough at something to "just see it" it becomes "objective". I think it's just really good practiced judgment.

Like I said, good luck with it.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

I'm pretty sure we just don't agree on what "judgment" means. You seem to think that once you get good enough at something to "just see it" it becomes "objective". I think it's just really good practiced judgment.

Like I said, good luck with it.

pj
chgo

Or you keep trying to twist things to fit your narrative, lots of that going on in the world today.

And thanks my CTE journey has went much much better then expected. At 59 i am playing the best pool of my life!!!!

 

[BC21]

..... my CTE journey has went much much better then expected. At 59 i am playing the best pool of my life!!!!

That is awesome, and that's all that really matters. It doesn't matter what any of us non-cte users have to say about the system, as long as it has helped you that's all that matters. To each their own. I've had players around the globe send me emails thanking me for Poolology, for improving their game. And I've had a few say it's stupid and that I'm an idiot for thinking fractional aiming can be accurate. Like you with cte, the only proof you need is your own results.

Everyone has opinions on absolutely everything, but when it comes to the things you like, the only opinion that matters is your own. It's easy to get defensive when other opinions don't mesh with our own, but after reading a great little book titled "The Art of Not Giving a F**k", by Mark Manson, I am caring less and less about conflicting/opposing opinions.

 

[Dan White]

Everyone has opinions on absolutely everything, but when it comes to the things you like, the only opinion that matters is your own. It's easy to get defensive when other opinions don't mesh with our own, but after reading a great little book titled "The Art of Not Giving a F**k", by Mark Manson, I am caring less and less about conflicting/opposing opinions.

Never heard of that one, lol. What does Manson say about scientific fact vs speculation, as opposed to just opposing opinions? I mean, you could have an argument about whether orange juice tastes better than milk, and there would be opposing opinions with no right or wrong. You cannot argue whether orange juice is more acidic than milk. It is a fact and is not a matter of opinion. Does Manson recommend leaving the "acidity deniers" alone to spread their BS like the global warming nuts, or should they be challenged?

 

[BC21]

Never heard of that one, lol. What does Manson say about scientific fact vs speculation, as opposed to just opposing opinions? I mean, you could have an argument about whether orange juice tastes better than milk, and there would be opposing opinions with no right or wrong. You cannot argue whether orange juice is more acidic than milk. It is a fact and is not a matter of opinion. Does Manson recommend leaving the "acidity deniers" alone to spread their BS like the global warming nuts, or should they be challenged?

Lol. In the book (The Art of Not Giving a F***), Manson focuses more on acquring the ability to not get hung up on things that you cannot control, like other people's opinions or diehard beliefs. They only affect our happiness (or how we choose to live) if we allow them to affect us. The book is about understanding the important things, prioritizing things that matter and dropping things that really just waist our time, like arguments that have no end in sight, no settlements or compromises, whether based on objective facts or subjective opinions.

At some point it becomes more beneficial to simply nod and smile and let people happily go about doing things their own way. This applies to aiming pool shots as well. If a newby spends a few days with any particular aiming method, and they find themselves not making progress, it's a lesson learned....find another method. If you practice every day for a couple of weeks, and you aren't making obvious progress toward improvement, you are probably doing a lot of guessing, a lot of trial and error. At this rate your brain will require a few months, a few thousand shots before you become proficient. Or maybe you try a method that works great for you immediately, despite others saying it takes a while to figure it out and get it working. Regardless, it's a personal journey that you make. It has no effect on anyone else. Only you can decide the true value or validity of whatever it is you are doing to improve your game. What other people think or believe should really be of no concern. Everybody here can make up their own minds based on their own experiences in their own time.

 

[Dan White]

Lol. In the book (The Art of Not Giving a F***), Manson focuses more on acquring the ability to not get hung up on things that you cannot control, like other people's opinions or diehard beliefs. They only affect our happiness (or how we choose to live) if we allow them to affect us. The book is about understanding the important things, prioritizing things that matter and dropping things that really just waist our time, like arguments that have no end in sight, no settlements or compromises, whether based on objective facts or subjective opinions.

At some point it becomes more beneficial to simply nod and smile and let people happily go about doing things their own way. This applies to aiming pool shots as well. If a newby spends a few days with any particular aiming method, and they find themselves not making progress, it's a lesson learned....find another method. If you practice every day for a couple of weeks, and you aren't making obvious progress toward improvement, you are probably doing a lot of guessing, a lot of trial and error. At this rate your brain will require a few months, a few thousand shots before you become proficient. Or maybe you try a method that works great for you immediately, despite others saying it takes a while to figure it out and get it working. Regardless, it's a personal journey that you make. It has no effect on anyone else. Only you can decide the true value or validity of whatever it is you are doing to improve your game. What other people think or believe should really be of no concern. Everybody here can make up their own minds based on their own experiences in their own time.

The best bit of advice I learned recently came from an unlikely source. Cher was on a talk show relating something her mother told her. She said, "If it doesn't matter in 5 years then it doesn't matter." I liked that way of thinking. Sounds like Manson wrote a book around that idea!

 

[cookie man]

Never heard of that one, lol. What does Manson say about scientific fact vs speculation, as opposed to just opposing opinions? I mean, you could have an argument about whether orange juice tastes better than milk, and there would be opposing opinions with no right or wrong. You cannot argue whether orange juice is more acidic than milk. It is a fact and is not a matter of opinion. Does Manson recommend leaving the "acidity deniers" alone to spread their BS like the global warming nuts, or should they be challenged?

"The book is about understanding the important things, prioritizing things that matter and dropping things that really just waist our time,"
"
At some point it becomes more beneficial to simply nod and smile


Kinda how i feel after reading this post.
"Smile and wave boys",lol. A good phrase the swim coach taught my son's team to use when the other team was being jerks.

 

[Dan White]

"The book is about understanding the important things, prioritizing things that matter and dropping things that really just waist our time,"
"
At some point it becomes more beneficial to simply nod and smile


Kinda how i feel after reading this post.
"Smile and wave boys",lol. A good phrase the swim coach taught my son's team to use when the other team was being jerks.

I think you have to be trying very hard to disagree with what I said. Of course there are issues that are not so black and white. They have components of opinion and fact mixed in. Are you telling me that people who think the Earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary are not wrong simply because they choose not to believe the facts?

I'm not sure what your beef is.

 

[cookie man]

I think you have to be trying very hard to disagree with what I said. Of course there are issues that are not so black and white. They have components of opinion and fact mixed in. Are you telling me that people who think the Earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary are not wrong simply because they choose not to believe the facts?

I'm not sure what your beef is.

You know exactly what my beef is, but ok play stupid. nothing new.
Brian made a very sensible post and you just had to comeback with your little hidden subtle insults.
Give it a rest and go read the book Brian recommended and while you are at it finish the book he wrote.

 

[BC21]

......

Are you telling me that people who think the Earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary are not wrong simply because they choose not to believe the facts?

Being right or wrong isn't always a debatable thing. Some people believe what they want to believe despite opposing evidence or even the lack of supporting evidence. Too often our beliefs are rooted in wishful thinking, more faith-based rather than fact-based, and because of this they run too deep to be altered by even the most legitimate arguments. Any attempt to enlighten one side or the other with fact or opinion is a waste of time.

 

[cookie man]

Being right or wrong isn't always a debatable thing. Some people believe what they want to believe despite opposing evidence or even the lack of supporting evidence. Too often our beliefs are rooted in wishful thinking, more faith-based rather than fact-based, and because of this they run too deep to be altered by even the most legitimate arguments. Any attempt to enlighten one side or the other with fact or opinion is a waste of time.

And the majority of people will get there hands dirty gathering that supporting evidence.
But in today's world unfortunately we have keyboard warriors that sit behind the computer and try to ram there opinions down your throat.

 

[JoeyInCali]

And the majority of people will get there hands dirty gathering that supporting evidence.
But in today's world unfortunately we have keyboard warriors that sit behind the computer and try to ram there opinions down your throat.

3 of those keyboard warriors got that most ardent flat-earther for 10K, 4K and 10K.
He still insists the earth is flat but even he has wasted way too much time and energy on that instead of fixing mechanics the last decade.

Iirc Donny Mills challenged any systemer here and nobody took him on it.

PS
I have evidence one son of a flat-earther is clearly not even using his flat-earth argument when shooting on the money ball on an open table.

 

[BC21]

First of all, I have both of Stan's videos and watched all his you tubes. Also seen Bob Nunley's you tube on determing sweeps.
Waiting like everyone else (I am) who's interested for his book and TS.
Here's my question and I'll explain it.
When trying to determine sweeps/ pivots, inside or outside your supposed to be able to determine which it is, once you do the next part you should be able to determine if it's thick or thin. Alot of times I know which it is just because I can see the shot, but not always.
So if someone can just tell me what I 'm supposed to be looking at, it would be appreciated.
I get the visuals, see the fixed cb, and supposed to look through center cb to see if its thick or thin.
I'm not behind either line. I'm not supposed to be looking down the CTEL or the edge to a, b or c lines.

So, when looking through the cb center, after doing the above, what am I supposed to be looking at through center cb ?

I'm thinking it's simple, I'm just not seeing it.

In case you haven't found your answer yet....

Let's say you can use a mix of aiming methods, you might approach the table and immediately recognize what looks like a traditional half ball fractional shot, or maybe it looks like a CTE 15-inside will work. With the fractional approach you position/align your body and stroke path through ccb and visualize the half ball hit. Once you do this you might see that the shot actually needs to be struck a little thinner than a half ball. How do you know this? Experience. You recognize it because you've shot this particular angle many times from all over the table.

With CTE you'd first recognize that you'll be using a 15° perception, then from that perception you would recognize whether or not the shot looks like it should be thinned or thickened. Once again, you would recognize this based on your experience, the same way you knew the shot was a little thinner than a 1/2 ball fractional hit. With enough experience most shots become easily recognizable -- you automatically know them when you see them. Watch Stan run a few balls as he calls out the perception and pivot/sweep direction for each shot. He calls them out as easily as reading these words because he knows them, he recognizes the shots due to his vast experience.

Without acquiring some level of experience it is very unlikely that a pool player could line up a shot, then recognize that it's off by just a couple of degrees, and therefore realign their body to a slightly thinner or thicker setup, or better yet remain on that first setup line and just place their bridge hand a 1/2 tip left or right of that line (parallel to it) and then pivot the cue tip to ccb.

All of this awareness, this recognition of small angle differences in the shots, requires a certain degree of experience. There is simply no way around it unless you already know the shot line before you even step up to the shot. In that case there is no need to decide if it looks thinner or thicker than where you've lined up. You just line up to the known line and fire it in.

 

[Dan White]

Being right or wrong isn't always a debatable thing. Some people believe what they want to believe despite opposing evidence or even the lack of supporting evidence. Too often our beliefs are rooted in wishful thinking, more faith-based rather than fact-based, and because of this they run too deep to be altered by even the most legitimate arguments. Any attempt to enlighten one side or the other with fact or opinion is a waste of time.

Hence the adage never to bring up religion or politics at a dinner party... or how to aim, I guess, lol. I find that liberals often personify the traits you mention above. Michael Savage calls liberalism a mental disorder. I don't think he is entirely wrong.

 

[cookie man]

In case you haven't found your answer yet....

Let's say you can use a mix of aiming methods, you might approach the table and immediately recognize what looks like a traditional half ball fractional shot, or maybe it looks like a CTE 15-inside will work. With the fractional approach you position/align your body and stroke path through ccb and visualize the half ball hit. Once you do this you might see that the shot actually needs to be struck a little thinner than a half ball. How do you know this? Experience. You recognize it because you've shot this particular angle many times from all over the table.

With CTE you'd first recognize that you'll be using a 15° perception, then from that perception you would recognize whether or not the shot looks like it should be thinned or thickened. Once again, you would recognize this based on your experience, the same way you knew the shot was a little thinner than a 1/2 ball fractional hit. With enough experience most shots become easily recognizable -- you automatically know them when you see them. Watch Stan run a few balls as he calls out the perception and pivot/sweep direction for each shot. He calls them out as easily as reading these words because he knows them, he recognizes the shots due to his vast experience.

Without acquiring some level of experience it is very unlikely that a pool player could line up a shot, then recognize that it's off by just a couple of degrees, and therefore realign their body to a slightly thinner or thicker setup, or better yet remain on that first setup line and just place their bridge hand a 1/2 tip left or right of that line (parallel to it) and then pivot the cue tip to ccb.

All of this awareness, this recognition of small angle differences in the shots, requires a certain degree of experience. There is simply no way around it unless you already know the shot line before you even step up to the shot. In that case there is no need to decide if it looks thinner or thicker than where you've lined up. You just line up to the known line and fire it in.

This is bad advice. CTE and fractional aiming are two different things. We don't line up behind CCB and then decide if it's off a few degrees. The degree of the shot doesn't matter to CTE. We line up to our perception which then means we are a half tip pivot away from our goal.
Brian just because Poolology is all strictly guesswork that doesn't mean every system is.

 

[cookie man]

3 of those keyboard warriors got that most ardent flat-earther for 10K, 4K and 10K.
He still insists the earth is flat but even he has wasted way too much time and energy on that instead of fixing mechanics the last decade.

Iirc Donny Mills challenged any systemer here and nobody took him on it.

PS
I have evidence one son of a flat-earther is clearly not even using his flat-earth argument when shooting on the money ball on an open table.

Whatever If you got your hands dirty you would know the earth isn't flat.

 

[cookie man]

Hence the adage never to bring up religion or politics at a dinner party... or how to aim, I guess, lol. I find that liberals often personify the traits you mention above. Michael Savage calls liberalism a mental disorder. I don't think he is entirely wrong.

Quite the opposite i think.
Republicans know what they are talking about and the liberals keep trying to force there views on us. Leave us Republicans alone and just let us do what's best for us. You aren't doing what we do so stop trying to change us

 

[BC21]

This is bad advice. CTE and fractional aiming are two different things. We don't line up behind CCB and then decide if it's off a few degrees. The degree of the shot doesn't matter to CTE. We line up to our perception which then means we are a half tip pivot away from our goal.
Brian just because Poolology is all strictly guesswork that doesn't mean every system is.

I didn't say you line up behind ccb when using CTE. I said you first recognize which perception to use, then from that perception, not directly behind either of the lines, you look straight through ccb (the "fixed" cue ball) and determine whether you will need an inside or outside pivot/sweep. This is exactly how Stan describes it in his video about determining the pivot direction here: https://youtu.be/4iuvQT7dwfs?t=243s

My point was to the op, and it's dead on: When a player is trying to learn cte, the only way to determine the pivot direction is by looking at that fixed cb after getting your visuals, looking where the cb will send the ob if shot from there, then realizing it'll be too thick or too thin. The more you do it the quicker you just recognize the shot when you see it. You automatically know if it's a 15-inside or outside. But at first, just like traditional fractional aiming (Stan gjves a lesson on this also, says it's his second favorite aiming system), the player must acquire the ability to recognize slight angle differences to know whether or not a shot alignment looks slightly too thin or thick. With CTE this recognition comes from the fixed cb perspective. With traditional fractions (the 5 line system, or quarter system) the recognition also comes from a fixed cb perspective. The only difference is CTE fixes the cb perspective by using two visual lines and fractional aiming fixes it with one. In that aspect most aiming methods work the same, meaning you use basic aiming references and then thin or thicken the shot as needed, based on experience. Sometimes, except with CTE, the basic reference line is dead on track to pocket the ball without any thinning/thickening needed.

Oh, and Poolology is no guesswork. It's not traditional fractional aiming. You know the aim line before getting down on the shot.

 

[Low500]

---------------------

 

[Low500]

--------------------