English with Aiming Systems

[swest]

You have not watched any because you haven't tried to find them or because you don't consider that the ones out there demonstrating CTE are not demonstrating CTE?

Because there certainly are videos demonstrating CTE.

In the video that is uploading now I am NOT demonstrating CTE other than to state that I am using it to aim with. But I do have other videos where I attempt to demonstrate with instructions. Those video are generally more confusing than clear but they represent the best I can do with my limited time and limited understanding of the method. Simply put I have not yet learned how to teach it effectively.

But if you want to learn to jump balls I am one of the best in the world at teaching that.

No, I just meant that I have never watched anyone use CTE during play, and I'm curious to see what the process looks like, nothing more. I suppose you're right, though, if I really want to see a good example, there are probably better videos for that purpose...

 

[JB Cases]

No, I just meant that I have never watched anyone use CTE during play, and I'm curious to see what the process looks like, nothing more. I suppose you're right, though, if I really want to see a good example, there are probably better videos for that purpose...

This is about the best video going to watch CTE in action:

This is two hours of pure magic, CTE/ProOne use with spin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HYQjoHjwL4

 

[JB Cases]

Here your go, my amateur attempt to explain how I shoot pool without adjusting my aim for speed. At the end I do a few minutes on using CTE with backhand english. As with all my videos this is unscripted, uncut, unedited, stream-of-consciousness narrative.

http://youtu.be/EbS6XxVtEzQ

 

[dr_dave]

I copied this from Dr Dave's site:

 For small cut angle shots (i.e., fuller hits), the amount of CIT does not vary with shot speed,
but increases with cut angle.
 For larger cut angle shots (i.e., thinner hits), the amount of CIT is significantly larger for
slower speed shots as compared to faster speed shots.
 The amount of CIT decreases some with larger cut angles, but not by much (especially for
slower speed shots).
 Maximum CIT occurs at close to a half-ball hit (30º cut angle).
 In general, throw is larger at slower speeds, and for stun shots

I bet he has a video on this.

The following video demonstrates many of the important CIT and SIT effects:

NV B.86 - Cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT), from VEPS IV​

Many more supporting resources (videos, illustrations, instructional articles) can be found here:

squirt, swerve, and throw effects​

Regards,
Dave

 

[scottjen26]

John,

Your own video proves what I was saying. Of the balls you made, several of them (the 7, then 6, then a few shots later the 10 I think) were hit at a slower speed, and you can see, assuming you lined up consistently, that the balls went in the far side of the pocket, the slowest one almost missing. Again, assuming consistency in the aim and stroke, that's because of the collision induced throw!

Of course from this angle, shooting into a full pocket from only 2 diamonds away, you can still make most of the shots with CIT because the few degrees of CIT or cling will still allow the ball to be made, but certainly not in the middle of the pocket. On tighter equipment, or when shooting from other positions, you will miss.

Try the same test when the ball is further up the table, so there's not a full pocket to aim into, or closer to the rail. You cannot make the shot at all speeds unless the equipment is extremely forgiving, and even then you will see that the whole pocket is being used or the shot will go in off the rail.

I would also recommend lining up the shot with CTE initially and somehow marking the track to the ghost ball, that way you can do your best to aim down that track on each shot and would have the best results in both making the ball and not subconsciously adjusting for anything.

I do appreciate the time you take to upload this type of information, not everyone does and I certainly learned from some of your earlier videos when I was trying to decipher CTE/Pro1.

Scott

 

[CJ Wiley]

practive a speed that deflects and spins back the same amount

To me soft is barely reaching the end rail. Medium is coming back down to the shooter, hard is going four rails or more.

This is how I've seen the different speeds illustrated as well. It is difficult to apply english and judge it consistently using a stroke that varies from "medium".

When calibrating english on a new or unfamiliar table/cloth it is prudent to practice a speed that deflects and spins back the same amount so you don't have to make allowances. imho

 

[ENGLISH!]

Speed

I never think of speeds in those terms. I simply fine tune my speed as I play a table. A full table stroke on a dirty slow cloth bar box that just reaches the rail may be a 1 & 1/2 table lengths or more on a fast Simonis. A slow one day might be near a medium the next.

I agree with both of you, John & CJ, if I had to define speeds. I'm just saying that what stroke gets those is different from table to table & day to day.

Just my $0.02

 

[JB Cases]

John,

Your own video proves what I was saying. Of the balls you made, several of them (the 7, then 6, then a few shots later the 10 I think) were hit at a slower speed, and you can see, assuming you lined up consistently, that the balls went in the far side of the pocket, the slowest one almost missing. Again, assuming consistency in the aim and stroke, that's because of the collision induced throw!

Of course from this angle, shooting into a full pocket from only 2 diamonds away, you can still make most of the shots with CIT because the few degrees of CIT or cling will still allow the ball to be made, but certainly not in the middle of the pocket. On tighter equipment, or when shooting from other positions, you will miss.

Try the same test when the ball is further up the table, so there's not a full pocket to aim into, or closer to the rail. You cannot make the shot at all speeds unless the equipment is extremely forgiving, and even then you will see that the whole pocket is being used or the shot will go in off the rail.

I would also recommend lining up the shot with CTE initially and somehow marking the track to the ghost ball, that way you can do your best to aim down that track on each shot and would have the best results in both making the ball and not subconsciously adjusting for anything.

I do appreciate the time you take to upload this type of information, not everyone does and I certainly learned from some of your earlier videos when I was trying to decipher CTE/Pro1.

Scott

You can say that but I have set up another experiment that shows me that it's pretty ALL about the stroke and hitting the ball square. Sorry but I firmly believe that we tend to throw the cueball off line more than we think we do by NOT hitting it where we think we are hitting it.

I feel that this is the reason for misses MORE than any friction throw. Much more the reason.

The video doesn't at all show you the quality of the hit, nor does it show you IF the cue ball is striking the object ball in exactly the same place every time.

The only point was that I was attempting to aim the same way each time and send the cue ball rolling right over GB center.

Now we have two scenarios possible.

1. I am capable of delivering the cue ball precisely to a known spot each time.

2. I am NOT capable of delivering a cue ball to a known spot each time.

In the first one I out of three speeds shot with I should only be able to make the ball with one of them while the other two should throw the object ball way off line.

In the second one it's anyone's guess where the cue ball ACTUALLY hits the object ball on any given shot.

Now having said that I can pretty much immediately tell when I didn't hit the cue ball purely to send it over the GB center. The shots where I did do that were pretty much dead on making the object ball at every speed.

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

So I set up a test where I can shoot side rail to side rail along a chalk line. I made it so that I can only shoot the cue ball straight or I will disturb the balls frozen to the cue ball and I set it up so that the only possible clean hit on the object ball is at the GB position or thinner. A thicker hit contacts the guide ball first.

So with this setup there is virtually no way to be "off" and no way to aim thinner or thicker for speed.

What I have discovered however is the same thing I discovered in my video, purity of stroke matters greatly. I found that it's possible to miss the shot by being the tiniest bit off on the stroke even though I didn't disturb any of the control balls. BUT if I really, really really, focused on sending the cueball straight down the line without even looking at the object ball then I can make it at any speed from super slow to very hard.

I also put two shafts together to make a channel and rolled the cue ball down the line to see what happens. The result of this super light hit on the object ball is that the object ball goes right into the pocket.

I plan to make a tube apparatus that send the cue ball towards the object ball at higher rates of speed to totally eliminate the human being and see what happens.

So at this point we still disagree. I don't deny the existence of CIT - I simply don't agree on the degree to which it matters.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

Your own video proves what I was saying. Of the balls you made, several of them (the 7, then 6, then a few shots later the 10 I think) were hit at a slower speed, and you can see, assuming you lined up consistently, that the balls went in the far side of the pocket, the slowest one almost missing. Again, assuming consistency in the aim and stroke, that's because of the collision induced throw!

See my other post. At this point the jury is still out on this. I'd bet that if there were a delivery system that could make the cue ball go 100% down the same line every time you would see that the object ball can be made right down the center pocket line at any speed.

Of course from this angle, shooting into a full pocket from only 2 diamonds away, you can still make most of the shots with CIT because the few degrees of CIT or cling will still allow the ball to be made, but certainly not in the middle of the pocket. On tighter equipment, or when shooting from other positions, you will miss.

I used a spot shot because Mitchxout said that this was THE shot to prove you need to adjust the aim for speed. I think I somewhat proved that this is not the case. But I have another setup that proves it even further.

Try the same test when the ball is further up the table, so there's not a full pocket to aim into, or closer to the rail. You cannot make the shot at all speeds unless the equipment is extremely forgiving, and even then you will see that the whole pocket is being used or the shot will go in off the rail.

I have. Shooting balls from up table and balls close to the rails is what I like best. And I can make them shooting at ANY speed using the same aim.

I would also recommend lining up the shot with CTE initially and somehow marking the track to the ghost ball, that way you can do your best to aim down that track on each shot and would have the best results in both making the ball and not subconsciously adjusting for anything.

The table was marked with lines and the GB center.

I do appreciate the time you take to upload this type of information, not everyone does and I certainly learned from some of your earlier videos when I was trying to decipher CTE/Pro1.

Scott

You're welcome. It also serves myself to learn whether I am right or wrong or a little bit of either. I appreciate Dr. Dave's videos but frankly some of them could use a little critique because they don't adequately tell the whole story on some of the terms we use.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB Cases:
I'd bet that if there were a delivery system that could make the cue ball go 100% down the same line every time you would see that the object ball can be made right down the center pocket line at any speed.

You'd bet that the laws of physics don't apply?

Gutsy (or something).

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

You'd bet that the laws of physics don't apply?

Gutsy (or something).

pj
chgo

I didn't say that I would bet a lot. But I do bet that CIT is not as big an issue as some folks make it out to be.

I have such a delivery system thought out. Got to find the time to build it. Then I will do my experiments on video and we can analyze the results.

 

[Mitchxout]

I told you the video wouldn't prove anything. However, doubting the effect speed has on CIT is undeniable.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I do bet that CIT is not as big an issue as some folks make it out to be.

I agree with that. For a spot shot with a slow half ball stun hit, maximum throw is only maybe 3 inches (I think) at the pocket. With a rolling cue ball it's less - maybe not enough to miss the shot, but enough to be visible.

I have such a delivery system thought out.

Seems to me a long ramp should do it. Start the cue ball from farther up or down the ramp to control speed.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

I told you the video wouldn't prove anything. However, doubting the effect speed has on CIT is undeniable.

The video proved something to me.

And here is another one that proves it even more. In this one I hit the shot with hard, medium and soft speeds and with all three the ball goes in. Now it's clear to see that there are some shots where the ball does track perfectly down the center pocket line. But I don't know that this only because of CIT or if it's because the setup isn't dead perfect to insure that the all the balls are sitting perfectly in place and that the cue ball is sent perfectly down the shot line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcKDpUqY39o&feature=youtu.be

But this is my second video where I at least have a better setup than the first one.

Later I will build a channel/ramp to insure that the cueball is delivered perfectly down the line and I will make some ball placement stickers, basically hole reinforcers cut in half to insure that the object ball is perfectly placed.

I don't deny CIT's existence. I deny for now the idea that one MUST aim differently for different speeds. At this point I don't think so. I think if the aim is true for a center pocket shot and you hit the ball right down that shot line at any speed then the object ball will go into the hole.

I feel at this point that stroke quality, i.e. where you actually hit the cue ball, is more important than the speed of the cue ball at impact. Further testing will either confirm or deny this idea.

So again:

Speed vs CIT in Aiming version 2 Video

 

[dr_dave]

I don't deny CIT's existence. I deny for now the idea that one MUST aim differently for different speeds. At this point I don't think so. I think if the aim is true for a center pocket shot and you hit the ball right down that shot line at any speed then the object ball will go into the hole.

John (and others following this),

If you haven't watched this entire video yet, check it out:

NV B.86 - Cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT), from VEPS IV​

It explains and demonstrates many of the important throw effects. CIT is most pronounced (and must be adjusted for) with slower-speed stun shots. SIT is also largest with slow-speed stun (and about 50% of maximum sidespin).

Check out the video. All of the experiments were done very carefully and they are easy to reproduce on a table without special equipment.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JB Cases]

John (and others following this),

If you haven't watched this entire video yet, check it out:

NV B.86 - Cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT), from VEPS IV​

It explains and demonstrates many of the important throw effects. CIT is most pronounced (and must be adjusted for) with slower-speed stun shots. SIT is also largest with slow-speed stun (and about 50% of maximum sidespin).

Check out the video. All of the experiments were done very carefully and they are easy to reproduce on a table without special equipment.

Regards,
Dave

I have watched the video and it's the basis for the videos I am doing. As I said I don't deny CIT or SIT. I have videos from more than a year ago where I talk about it. The contention here is whether one must aim differently to account for different shot speeds.

I say that you don't need to aim differently for most shots BUT you CAN aim differently if you want to and you know why you are doing it.

Your videos are good but I think that there is a bit more to the story so I am trying to tell it. However I could be wrong and if so then that should come out with further experimenting.

Also while I certainly believe you were careful with the set up I don't think that the examples you show in the videos are representative of being completely repeatable without some sort of jigs to insure 100% accurate placement. That's part of the problem as I see it with this topic. What you show and what a dead nuts perfect setup with a jig guide might not have the same results.

I just remember a time when Iron Wille was set up on a pool table and it makes a shot 100 times in a row once dialed in. That's the sort of set up that is needed to really see what's happening without the contamination of the human stroke in my opinion.

But on the other hand we only have the stroke to use when we play so even if I am technically right it doesn't change the fact that perception and execution don't always synch. So if the perception is that aiming a little fuller/thinner for speed results in better pocketing then perhaps it's better to play that way. I don't and do pretty good anyway. But now I am curious to test this CIT vs. Speed concept a little more just because. I already don't agree with your conclusion that with shots less than 20 degrees speed doesn't matter while higher than 20 degrees does. I think my second video clearly showed that to not be the case at least at short distances. Will see how it plays out with longer object ball travel.

 

[dr_dave]

The contention here is whether one must aim differently to account for different shot speeds.

If comparing a slow stun shot to a fast-speed rolling CB shot, the answer is most definitely yes (especially with greater distance to the pocket and with tight pockets).

Also while I certainly believe you were careful with the set up I don't think that the examples you show in the videos are representative of being completely repeatable without some sort of jigs to insure 100% accurate placement.

Most of the shots in the video, due to the setup of surrounding balls, are easily reproducible by anybody. That's why we chose those particular shots and setups.

But now I am curious to test this CIT vs. Speed concept a little more just because. I already don't agree with your conclusion that with shots less than 20 degrees speed doesn't matter while higher than 20 degrees does.

That's great you want to verify all of this on your own. I would encourage others to do the same. FYI, both Bob Jewett and I have verified these facts experimentally and independently (see my September '06 "throw results" BD article and Bob's plot). I have also proven the effects with physics analyses. The experimental data match the physics-based math very well.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[JB Cases]

If comparing a slow stun shot to a fast-speed rolling CB shot, the answer is most definitely yes (especially with greater distance to the pocket and with tight pockets).

Well then that should bear out then with more testing. However so far that has not proven to the be the case with the shots I have done.

Most of the shots in the video, due to the setup of surrounding balls, are easily reproducible by anybody. That's why we chose those particular shots and setups.

I don't think so. Yes, like trick shots the setups are clear but the execution is not. Which is why there are hundreds of diagrams for trick shots but rarely can a player accurately set them up and execute them without a fair amount of practice.

That's great you want to verify all of this on your own. I would encourage others to do the same. FYI, both Bob Jewett and I have verified these facts experimentally and independently (see my September '06 "throw results" BD article and Bob's plot). I have also proven the effects with physics analyses. The experimental data match the physics-based math very well.

Catch you later,
Dave

Well then there should be no surprises. If I am wrong then I will say it but I want to see it for myself on my table first.

 

[scottjen26]

Regardless of Dr. Dave's videos (most of which are very good) or anything else I've seen, CIT does exist and can cause you to miss a shot if not accounted for. That's my contention anyway based on my experience, especially here in Florida where things are always humid and the effects are slightly more pronounced.

I agree on some shots that the effect will not cause you to miss because of the built in tolerance, the ball will just go in one side of the pocket instead of dead center. The effect is minimal, possibly only changing the path of the object ball by 1 or 2 degrees. But from a far distance from the pocket or near a rail when you don't have the whole pocket to shoot into, especially on tighter equipment, the effect will get you more often than you think when hitting at slow speeds or with stun and those angles where the effect is most pronounced. But as you said, it's not something you have to overly worry about, just something to take into account on certain shots and speeds.

I also agree that often when hitting at different speeds the hit itself is to blame. But I think most decent players recognize the effect, since you very rarely see players roll a ball slowly when cutting a ball down the rail unless absolutely necessary. Just giving it a nice roll will do wonders to counteract and minimize CIT, Lee Brett covers the same thing in his recent video.

If you can build some sort of ramp, and place the object ball in a position where 1 or 2 degrees does make a difference (near a rail for instance), it should be easy to prove. Any of us trying to hit down a predefined aiming line or even at a GB position is not going to be accurate enough to prove anything really.

Scott

 

[ENGLISH!]

Regardless of Dr. Dave's videos (most of which are very good) or anything else I've seen, CIT does exist and can cause you to miss a shot if not accounted for. That's my contention anyway based on my experience, especially here in Florida where things are always humid and the effects are slightly more pronounced.

I agree on some shots that the effect will not cause you to miss because of the built in tolerance, the ball will just go in one side of the pocket instead of dead center. The effect is minimal, possibly only changing the path of the object ball by 1 or 2 degrees. But from a far distance from the pocket or near a rail when you don't have the whole pocket to shoot into, especially on tighter equipment, the effect will get you more often than you think when hitting at slow speeds or with stun and those angles where the effect is most pronounced. But as you said, it's not something you have to overly worry about, just something to take into account on certain shots and speeds.

I also agree that often when hitting at different speeds the hit itself is to blame. But I think most decent players recognize the effect, since you very rarely see players roll a ball slowly when cutting a ball down the rail unless absolutely necessary. Just giving it a nice roll will do wonders to counteract and minimize CIT, Lee Brett covers the same thing in his recent video.

If you can build some sort of ramp, and place the object ball in a position where 1 or 2 degrees does make a difference (near a rail for instance), it should be easy to prove. Any of us trying to hit down a predefined aiming line or even at a GB position is not going to be accurate enough to prove anything really.

Scott

Scott,

I agree with what you've said. One needs to be aware of it & I certaily am, but it still sneeks up & bites me now & then.

Regards,