Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[ENGLISH!]

It's easy to answer. CTE is a pivot system. That means you pivot on all shots. The strength of these kinds systems are that they don't require that you know the exact number of degrees of cut etc. Instead they will provide you with usually two shot choices, one that will look good to you, another which probably won't, as opposed to an infinite number of choices for a fractional system. And the pivot system will have well defined shot choices, wheras the fractional system etc will be more "blurry" if you get my drift. I still don't think it works perfectly as advertised, but this is what the systems are supposed to do. Belive it, or don't, it's up to you.

Thanks for the explanation.

I understand the 'method'. The issue is that you have the line of the visual with a pivot to thin or thicken off of that line. Well... what about when the actual shot IS the line of the visual?

You see, some of the proponents don't really understand what they are truly doing as it relates to subjectivity.

I think you could see & understand what I'm saying here when it is kept in the supposed totally objective vein.

When using TOI based on just the CTC & CTE line, one is looking for the thick line from which to then thin the shot...but there are ocassions when the CTE line IS the shot line & requires no thinning. So, no TOI is required. If for some reason one still wants to use the TOI, then one would need to perhaps align to the 1/2 way point between the CTC & CTE or some other line between them.

So... what about when the actual true shot line IS the visual line & does not need a pivot?

Thanks again & Best 2 Ya.

PS This is not really a question for you, it's just putting out some food for thought.

PPS You see some seem to think that the only ones involved are those that post & they forget about the vast silent majority that is not unintelligent.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Thanks for the explanation.

I understand the 'method'. The issue is that you have the line of the visual with a pivot to thin or thicken off of that line. Well... what about when the actual shot IS the line of the visual?

You see, some of the proponents don't really understand what they are truly doing as it relates to subjectivity.

I think you could see & understand what I'm saying here when it is kept in the supposed totally objective vein.

When using TOI based on just the CTC & CTE line, one is looking for the thick line from which to then thin the shot...but there are ocassions when the CTE line IS the shot line & requires no thinning. So, no TOI is required. If for some reason one still wants to use the TOI, then one would need to perhaps align to the 1/2 way point between the CTC & CTE or some other line between them.

So... what about when the actual true shot line IS the visual line & does not need a pivot?

Thanks again & Best 2 Ya.

PS This is not really a question for you, it's just putting out some food for thought.

You said you didn't ask me....so I'll answer anyway lol. The answer is that the line you get from aquiring the visuals isn't the shot line at all. It is the starting line that you place your bridgehand paralell to (with the distance of exactly half a tip) and then you pivot and find your actual shot line. Of course with a manual pivot you need different bridgelengths for this to be accurate. You don't place your bridgehand on that line, like you would with a regular half ball hit in back of ball aiming for instance. Therefore having that line being the shot line makes no sense in CTE. The shot line is only arrived at when you pivot the cue. If, by some concidence you'd aquire the visual and be able to place the bridgehand on the line indicated (not offset) then you have the wrong visual! If you pivot from the bridgehand at the center visual line, then your shot has english on it!

 

[Straightpool_99]

Welcome to the same old tired argument. I reviewed one of the first DVDs when it came out, and haven't heard anything new since. In particular, you haven't mentioned anything new to me.

It seems you accept CTE's description of itself as factual. That's a mistake made by its users, and it's one of the "tells" that they don't really know it - they only "know" what they're told about it (for instance, that it isn't a fractional system with adjustments).

pj
chgo

Your post number 1577 leads me to believe you don't understand the system. I know A WHOLE LOT more than I'm been told about this system, from actually testing it, to the best of my abilities on a snooker table for a month of solid playing, every day. From that I found that I could not make it work as advertised. I therefore DO NOT BELIEVE the incredible claims made! Sadly I'm not a professor of engineering, so I can't illustrate my findings with maths etc, nor did I have a robot to do my testing for me. All I had was a fairly decent stroke (not perfect) and some time and willingness to do some work. That of course, means that people will dispute my findings. I'm fine with that, but I trust the results I arrived at, for now at least. The one thing that might give my findings a LITTLE more credibility is that I had no vested interest in seeing it fail. I genuinly tried my very hardest to make it work, I just couldn't. I also made sure to stroke straight, and to discard shot results where I felt the cue swoop etc. Again, not perfect, but no one else has provided definitive proofs against it either, so I don't feel too bad.

The illustration you made, looked good from a superficial glance, but I missed that you forgot to add pivot for some visuals etc. Based on little clues like that and glaring errors like in post #1577, I understand that your knowledge of the system can not be complete.

I don't think I can make my position any clearer on how pivot systems differ from a fractional or ghost ball system. If you think I've said something factually wrong in my explanations, you are free to correct those errors. Unlike some people I don't claim to know everything there is to know about pool. I do know a little something about aiming systems, enough not to make glaring errors like you just did.

I don't think I can argue my case any better than I allready have, so this will probably be my last post on this topic.

 

[LAMas]

If the tip of the shaft is .50" Then 1/2 tip (it's center to edge) is .25"
If the bridge is 12.00" behind the CB circumference.
Then the included angle post pivot to the center CB from the side from the original line is:
1.19 degrees.

All they way down table away from the then original line.

Be well

 

[LAMas]

If the OB is placed in the center of the table and the CB some distance away parallel to the long rails with the center of the CB aimed at the edge of the OB or CTE .

Then the CTE cut angle is closer to 28.9 degrees and not the geometrically correct 30.0 degrees but close enough for pool. CIT will reduce the 28.9 degrees a bit.

Be well

 

[ENGLISH!]

You said you didn't ask me....so I'll answer anyway lol. The answer is that the line you get from aquiring the visuals isn't the shot line at all. It is the starting line that you place your bridgehand paralell to (with the distance of exactly half a tip) and then you pivot and find your actual shot line. Of course with a manual pivot you need different bridgelengths for this to be accurate. You don't place your bridgehand on that line, like you would with a regular half ball hit in back of ball aiming for instance. Therefore having that line being the shot line makes no sense in CTE. The shot line is only arrived at when you pivot the cue. If, by some concidence you'd aquire the visual and be able to place the bridgehand on the line indicated (not offset) then you have the wrong visual! If you pivot from the bridgehand at the center visual line, then your shot has english on it!

Your explaining in the CTE dimension & seem to be missing the reality.

What if the TRUE REAL shot line IS that of the cte & 'edge to' line with no pivot.

It seems that CTE is saying that that shot simply does not exist on the table. That angle outcome is NEVER needed.

AND please keep in mind that CTE is supposed to be a center pocket 'system'.

I hope you can see & understand what I'm saying & the reality of the situation.

Best 2 Ya.

 

[Dan White]

So... what about when the actual true shot line IS the visual line & does not need a pivot?

Stan talks about this using a straight in shot as an example:

https://youtu.be/ht3ypwuxLw8?t=5m38s

The reasoning for doing it this way seems to be something like because that's the way the pro's do it.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Your explaining in the CTE dimension & seem to be missing the reality.

What if the TRUE REAL shot line IS that of the cte & 'edge to' line with no pivot.

It seems that CTE is saying that that shot simply does not exist on the table. That angle outcome is NEVER needed.

AND please keep in mind that CTE is supposed to be a center pocket 'system'.

I hope you can see & understand what I'm saying & the reality of the situation.

Best 2 Ya.

I have to explain it within the systems "world", otherwise the explanations are not going to be clear. Within the system a situation like the one you described is merely coincidental. Therefore, discussing it at length is a waste of time, since it will be a rare occurrence. The point of the system is to do everything the same, every time. So it makes sense to pivot on all shots, from a PSR standpoint.

If that situation should occur, then the pivot line will be wrong and the visual will be wrong for use with the pivot. In theory you should be able to pick another visual and pivot into the same line. That being said, nobody will shoot you if you use the line and don't pivot. The point is, you don't have to. You seem to think it is impossible that a shot could have a pivot and none pivot solution with different visuals. I think this may be possible, though coincidental and rare (depending on how exact you want it to be) and outside the scope of the system.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Stan talks about this using a straight in shot as an example:

https://youtu.be/ht3ypwuxLw8?t=5m38s

The reasoning for doing it this way seems to be something like because that's the way the pro's do it.

Thanks Dan, but that is not exactly what I'm talking about.

(One can shoot a straight in shot with TOI by adjusting the alignment in either direction.)

I'm talking about when you see the visual & that is the real true shot.

If you offset for a thinning pivot the shot misses.

If you offset for a thickening pivot the shot misses.

The true real shot is the visual with no pivot.

CTE seems to say that those shots simply do not exist. Those outcome angles are never needed.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Best 2 Ya.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I have to explain it within the systems "world", otherwise the explanations are not going to be clear. Within the system a situation like the one you described is merely coincidental. Therefore, discussing it at length is a waste of time, since it will be a rare occurrence. The point of the system is to do everything the same, every time. So it makes sense to pivot on all shots, from a PSR standpoint.

If that situation should occur, then the pivot line will be wrong and the visual will be wrong for use with the pivot. In theory you should be able to pick another visual and pivot into the same line. That being said, nobody will shoot you if you use the line and don't pivot. The point is, you don't have to. You seem to think it is impossible that a shot could have a pivot and none pivot solution with different visuals. I think this may be possible, though coincidental and rare (depending on how exact you want it to be) and outside the scope of the system.

The thing is that the 'system' is suppose to be totally objective & take one to the shot line via that specifically defined 1/2 tip pivot. What you call coincidental & rare, I think would be more common than that if one plays a lot of pool.

Thanks Again & Best 2 Ya.

 

[Neil]

The thing is that the 'system' is suppose to be totally objective & take one to the shot line via that specifically defined 1/2 tip pivot. What you call coincidental & rare, I think would be more common than that if one plays a lot of pool.

Thanks Again & Best 2 Ya.

Since you think that, you must have some basis for thinking it. So, why don't you show us one shot where that would be the case? Should be easy since you believe it actually is quite common.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Your post number 1577 leads me to believe you don't understand the system.

You think because CTE pivots for every shot that means the pivots aren't really adjustments between fractions? Like I said, you're giving CTE's self-description too much credence.

I missed that you forgot to add pivot for some visuals

You missed more than that. I didn't forget.

If you think I've said something factually wrong in my explanations, you are free to correct those errors.

Yes, I am - and I will if it's of general interest.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

Thanks Dan, but that is not exactly what I'm talking about.

(One can shoot a straight in shot with TOI by adjusting the alignment in either direction.)

I'm talking about when you see the visual & that is the real true shot.

If you offset for a thinning pivot the shot misses.

If you offset for a thickening pivot the shot misses.

The true real shot is the visual with no pivot.

CTE seems to say that those shots simply do not exist. Those outcome angles are never needed.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Best 2 Ya.

Yes, I see what you are saying. You are talking about a situation where, say the ETA/CTE visual will pocket the ball if you do no pivot. I think the answer, like Straightpool said, is that you have chosen the wrong visuals if you can't do the pivot and still make the shot. In the example I sent where Stan hits a straight in shot, he shows how he has to intentionally stand his body to the side of the shot line so that when he gets down on it he can pivot the cue straight into the shot line. It's like you have to get your head in the wrong spot so that you can overcompensate the other way with the cue. That's where I see the commonality between the straight in shot and the one you talk about that happens to be a cut shot.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The true real shot is the visual with no pivot.

That would make too much sense. CTE's "visuals" are defined as the alignment that's a pivot off of the true shot line - even for exact "aimpoint" cuts. Since the story is that CTE systematically "takes you to" this pre-pivot alignment (with an overcut!), to say it isn't always necessary would be admitting that's a subjective alignment.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

I keep scratching my head trying to figure out how, in the perception video, Stan is able to get a different result by using the same visuals and the same 1/2 tip left sweep. This has been the crux of the problem for a lot of people. Then I think cookie man sent me a video discussing left and right pivots as a means to change the direction of the shot with the same visual. However, I didn't pay attention to that because in the video Stan says specifically that he is using the same left pivot for every shot:

Example: just watch the first 10 seconds of this video:

https://youtu.be/-1Psy5hOJT0?t=6m44s

OK, now here is another video where Stan demonstrates, again, the idea that the object ball can be sent in different directions with the same visuals. However, in this case Stan decides to bank the ball. Instead of using a left pivot, he shows that you now need to use a right pivot.

Example: just watch about the first 10 seconds or so.

https://youtu.be/qGwHrdp6Tzw?t=5m54s

So in the first video Stan is able to change the path of the OB by rotating his body more and more around the cue ball until he gets the same ETA/CTE perception on all 5 shots. I find this impossible to achieve. For me you have to be in the same place for all 5 shots. Then, on the second video in order to change the path of the OB Stan switches from a left pivot (used to pocket the ball in the near side pocket) to a right pivot in order to fatten up the shot and make the bank.

So my question is why is Stan able to make the shots with no change to the left pivot in the first video, but has to go to a right pivot in the second one? Yes, I know the second one is a bank shot, but that shouldn't matter.

Any comments are welcome.

 

[8pack]

I keep scratching my head trying to figure out how, in the perception video, Stan is able to get a different result by using the same visuals and the same 1/2 tip left sweep. This has been the crux of the problem for a lot of people. Then I think cookie man sent me a video discussing left and right pivots as a means to change the direction of the shot with the same visual. However, I didn't pay attention to that because in the video Stan says specifically that he is using the same left pivot for every shot:

Example: just watch the first 10 seconds of this video:

https://youtu.be/-1Psy5hOJT0?t=6m44s

OK, now here is another video where Stan demonstrates, again, the idea that the object ball can be sent in different directions with the same visuals. However, in this case Stan decides to bank the ball. Instead of using a left pivot, he shows that you now need to use a right pivot.

Example: just watch about the first 10 seconds or so.

https://youtu.be/qGwHrdp6Tzw?t=5m54s

So in the first video Stan is able to change the path of the OB by rotating his body more and more around the cue ball until he gets the same ETA/CTE perception on all 5 shots. I find this impossible to achieve. For me you have to be in the same place for all 5 shots. Then, on the second video in order to change the path of the OB Stan switches from a left pivot (used to pocket the ball in the near side pocket) to a right pivot in order to fatten up the shot and make the bank.

So my question is why is Stan able to make the shots with no change to the left pivot in the first video, but has to go to a right pivot in the second one? Yes, I know the second one is a bank shot, but that shouldn't matter.

Any comments are welcome.

Your better off leaving this alone. If it dont make any since , there's a reason.

 

[Jal]

The thing is that the 'system' is suppose to be totally objective & take one to the shot line via that specifically defined 1/2 tip pivot. What you call coincidental & rare, I think would be more common than that if one plays a lot of pool.

Thanks Again & Best 2 Ya.

Rick, to be fair (I hope) to the CTE method and to what Straightpool_99 has been saying, when your head is in such a position that you're "taking in" both the cte line as well as the other appropriate reference line (edge to A,B,C), you're now facing the cueball "squarely." That is, if you imagine the cueball as two dimensional, your vision center is directed perpendicularly at that two dimensional disk. You then move into the shot with the cue 1/2 tip offset and parallel to a line running from your vision center through the center of that disk. If the shot actually calls for a 30 degree cut, for instance, the line from your vision center through the center of the disk will never point at the edge of the object ball because of the influence of the other reference line during your initial setup.

Of course - and if any of the CTE group agrees with what I just said, this will end it - the process of "taking in" or acquiring the two reference lines must be variable and memorized to cover all possible cut angles and CB-OB separation distances.

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I keep scratching my head trying to figure out how, in the perception video, Stan is able to get a different result by using the same visuals and the same 1/2 tip left sweep.

You're still asking this like you actually think there could be a rational answer.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

Your better off leaving this alone. If it dont make any since , there's a reason.

So you're saying I'm going to go bald?

 

[Dan White]

You're still asking this like you actually think there could be a rational answer.

pj
chgo

I know. Strange hobby, ain't it? I guess I'm an eternal optimist (euphemism for gullible)...