GOOD NEWS FOR THE "LURKERS" ABOUT CTE AIMING!
- Thread starter Low500
- Start date
The angle doesn't change, it shifts. For example, on a halfball aim with the cb and ob remaining on the same line, if you have the cb 12" from the ob and then aim for a halfball hit, you'll create a 30° cut angle (ignoring throw). If you move the cb back another 12" (still on the same center-to-center line with the ob), the cut angle is still 30° but it shifts about 2.7° from the first shot, which means if the ob is more than about 2 feet from the pocket this angle shift will be greater than the margin of error at the pocket, and the ob will likely rattle the jaws or not go in.
But this angle shift isn't really an issue at distances between about 2 feet and 5 feet. The shifting angle difference between a halfball shot with 2 ft between cb and ob, and one with 5 ft between cb and ob, is only about 1.5°. And that typically falls within the accepted margin of error for most shots.
Last edited:
This is a good example of where a pro player would say the physicist doesn't know what he is talking about and vice versa. The pro knows he has to shoot thinner if he is close to the ob so he says the angle changes. He doesn't know that the angle actually does not change, but that doesn't really matter. I'm going to let the pro shoot that shot for me over the physicist any day. Good topic and you are certainly qualified to discuss it. I imagine you spent a lot of hours on this in developing Poolology.
Yeah, and I am only referring to fractional aiming references. When using the same fractional aiming reference from two different cb positions where the distance between cb and ob is the on only thing that changes, that's when the angle shifting comes into play.
It's a common argument people make against fractional aiming when using the centerline between cb and ob as a starting reference. But it's only a relevant argument when the balls are close together or greater than about 5 or 6ft apart. At any distance between 2ft and 5ft the shift is basically insignificant.
Between 1ft and 2ft the shift is about 2.7°, so aiming a touch thinner might be needed. Closer than a foot the shift really begins to increase dramatically and shots need to be aimed a lot thinner. But, generally, closer than 2ft may require aiming a touch thinner and farther than 5 may require aiming a touch thicker.
Last edited:
Only if you move the CB on the center-to-center line. If you move the CB on the center-to-edge aim line the cut angle doesn't change.
pj
chgo
Dan, I used to work for a company that built websites for book publishers. Self publishing a book is a very common thing. It is certainly not looked down on.
My point on having a publisher was not that self publishing was a bad thing but rather that having a publisher backing your work adds an extra legitimacy or cache to your work, like an endorsement. Stan did not have that and I would have left it alone but for a couple of people here acting like children.
If the Powerpoint example was able to place the CB in the first, lower example a bit to the left and in contact with the OB per your arrow, the CB would move a bit to the left and up to contact the OB . The would increase the angle
Thanks. The CBs are on the same center-to-center line.
The insignificant 1.5" is a change of the angle.
See Brian's explanation... (better than mine
)As someone not in the know, and probably a good respresentation of the general public's thoughts on a writter being published, I have to agree with Dan, for what that's worth. The concept of a writter producing a body of work that's been reviewed by a company and deem worthy enough by that company to invest in, has an air of ...?...., 'je ne sais quoi'.
Paying a company in full to produce your work does not carry that same significance to the layman, and is really no different then me going down to staples and paying them to use their photocopier for images of my ass.
Regardless, Stan had the book printed, and at his own expense. Which does imo, qualify his believe in the system, or at the very least the qualify his believe in people willing to literally 'buy' into the system. I saw it stated in one of these threads that Stan isn't likely to recoup his investment. For me that just means the audience is smaller then he thought. There's no way there isn't margin on a $100 book, hardcover or not.
Let's say you have an ob sitting in the middle of the table on the center spot.
With the cb placed 2ft away from the ob, and lined up so that the centerline between the balls is in line with the middle diamond on the end rail. A halfball aim will send the ob into either corner pocket. We'll choose left corner pocket and use a halfball aim.
The ob will go into the pocket. Now if we shoot the same shot again but this time with 3 or 4 feet between cb and ob (both still on the same centerline as the first shot), we can use the same halfball aim to pocket the ball.
For the first shot (cb 2ft from ob) our 30° cut sends the ob to the right of center pocket. With the cb 3ft away the same halfball aim (30° cut) shifts the ob path about 0.9° to the left, and the ob goes in closer to center pocket. From 4ft away the shift is 1.4° from the first shot, and the ob goes in just left of center pocket.
With this example, the same halfball aim produced three 30° cuts, and each cut slightly shifted left (in relation to the pocket) as we moved the cb farther away from the ob but still on the same centerline. It works because from the ob's location on the table it has a 2.1° window in which it can be in and hit that corner pocket. As long as the shift with the angle doesn't exceed that, the ball hits the pocket.
Last edited:
Concerning the exact angles and whether or not certain aiming references work for a variety of angles (within the margin of ob acceptance at the pocket), Dan is 100% correct --- I'd trust a good shot maker over any physicist when it comes to actually pocketing balls.
Knowing the specifics of exactly why or how something works isn't necessary. All that matters is knowing that what you're doing will result in the ball hitting the pocket. Once you figure out how to do that, nothing any mathematician or engineer or physicist says or comes up with really matters. Whether it's ghostball or contact points or CTE or traditional fractions or Poolology, or pure guesswork... Once you figure out how to work it, that's all you need to know.
Knowing the specifics of exactly why or how something works isn't necessary. All that matters is knowing that what you're doing will result in the ball hitting the pocket. Once you figure out how to do that, nothing any mathematician or engineer or physicist says or comes up with really matters. Whether it's ghostball or contact points or CTE or traditional fractions or Poolology, or pure guesswork... Once you figure out how to work it, that's all you need to know.
You said it all.
S.H.S.M
Member
What's wrong with you @Dan White ?
You can't understand the CTE because you are a narcissist.
Because you can't solve this problem.
Do you remember when you were a kid ?
You got sick.
You can't understand CTE because it's not for you.
Tyler Styer can Aim with CTE because he is cleaver.
Hal Houle was genius.
Stan Shuffett is a really perfect CTE teacher,he is genius too.
But who are you ? A lost child.
You don't try to solve your problems.
I'm a psychologist. Please go visit a dr and make a good life for your self.
CTE is not your problem, do you wanna help others ? Go to emergency.
You waste your time and our time.
If you can't understand the CTE its ok finish. You can stop using it.
You can't understand the CTE because you are a narcissist.
Because you can't solve this problem.
Do you remember when you were a kid ?
You got sick.
You can't understand CTE because it's not for you.
Tyler Styer can Aim with CTE because he is cleaver.
Hal Houle was genius.
Stan Shuffett is a really perfect CTE teacher,he is genius too.
But who are you ? A lost child.
You don't try to solve your problems.
I'm a psychologist. Please go visit a dr and make a good life for your self.
CTE is not your problem, do you wanna help others ? Go to emergency.
You waste your time and our time.
If you can't understand the CTE its ok finish. You can stop using it.
Last edited:
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Ad hominem attack. This proves noting. Every aiming system (or lack thereof) that pockets balls reliably is not better or worse than any other system. I'm not bashing CTE, so get your panties out of a bunch (see I can ad hominem too), it's just that there is more than one way to get to a shot line. Attacking someone, their ability, or their character is a logical fallacy. Please refrain from such tactics if you want to get your point across and be seen as anything other than a child throwing a fit.Gaslighting.If you truly are a psychologists, I feel sorry for your employer and your patients. You need to learn how to think and speak logically. I'm surprised that someone with your profession hasn't studied this in school.
S.H.S.M
Member
Im not your doctor
If you truly are a psychologists, I feel sorry for your employer and your patients. You need to learn how to think and speak logically. I'm surprised that someone with your profession hasn't studied this in school.
S.H.S.M
Member
Another sick
Its free for you