Hal Houle

[av84fun]

It seems to me that no matter what you're initially aiming at, CTE or anything else, the point at which the cue stick is pivoted is very important.

Here are just three different points along the cue to pivot from and they send the CB in three very different directions:

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if so, what?

Actually, that is a pretty cool graphic and is the best I've seen so far in terms of its potential to actually describe the system.

While I don't understand what you mean by there being "only three different points along the cue to pivot from" let me put that aside and just comment that if you draw a line from the top center of the cb to the edge of the OB, you will see that the V formed by the thumb and index finger are in different positions relative to the CTE line.

Therefore, while I may get a debate from other CTE devotees, I hold that the placement of the bridge hand is central to the correct use of the system.

The achievement of the correct hand placement can be differnent from on person to the next but I hold that meaningful differences in bridge hand placement will produce meaningful differences in the line of aim.

Also, I think that the VERY close bridge hand position shown in one of your figures clearly shows that CTE will NOT work with such close placement.

However, having just "taken it to the table" longer bridge lengths within the range of distances that are used, that distance does not abort the achievement of the correct line of aim.

Your graphic shows that it does but the hand is in the wrong place in those examples.

Good work though.

It would be GREAT if you can create a graphic showing a pocket in the correct geometric relationship to the CB/OB.

Place the bridge hand with the V mentioned about about 1/4 inch inside the CTE line (on a cut to the left as shown).

Then show the line of travel of the CB if struck at its center.

Then show where the CB will contact the OB.

Then show the line to the pocket...BUT...the OB WILL NOT track that line due to CIT.

That is one of the elements of the true genious of the system. It correctly accounts for CIT with a center ball hit.

Actually some instructors advise against the automatic use of outside to offset CIT and rather, recommend that the shooter pick the CORRECT contact point for the cut not the GEOMETRIC contact point...which is the WRONG point given a center ball hit.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

Maybe you should look up "analogous" and "interchangeable".

A grown person like yourself (especially one with such ambitious pretensions) should know that words are often used imprecisely to enhance communication (again, look up "analogy"). If you believe that words can only be allowed to mean one of the precise things they're formally defined to mean, you've missed much of the true meaning and richness of the world's literature. I wouldn't be surprised.

pj
chgo

Oh, here we go again Patrick...so NEVER again accuse me of being a dictionary terrorist! You bring it on yourself.

analogy

1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b: comparison based on such resemblance.

"Instinct" and "intuition" are not analogous because they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things. They do NOT "agree" with each other in any respect.

They do NOT "resemble" each other in any respect.

You should study up on the topic of "false analogies."

This will get you started.."False analogy is an informal fallacy applying to inductive arguments. It is often mistakenly considered to be a formal fallacy, but it is not, because a false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument.

Remember when I had to explain to you that a "reasonable" argument is not necessarily a CORRECT argument??

"Get on me Bert....I can't lose."

(-:

 

[CueAndMe]

Jim, a couple of things. First, I want to thank you for finally giving some instruction. Now we can all see how you go about placing your bridge hand. I still don't see how the 1/4" bridge hand placement makes the center to edge pivot system any more foolproof, but I truly thank you for sharing what you know.

Second, I think you owe Hal an apology. In your efforts to discredit me, you actually discredited Hal's method by saying that my description of it had so many holes that you could drive some sort of large vehicle through it. I actually spent the time to learn it from him. You say you only talked on the phone with him years ago, tossing out his method immediately. I don't see how you can assume that you know the method better than I. My description is exactly Hal's description -- nothing added, and nothing left out. And if you're attacking me, you're attacking him.

 

[cigjonser]

It would be GREAT if you can create a graphic showing a pocket in the correct geometric relationship to the CB/OB.

Place the bridge hand with the V mentioned about about 1/4 inch inside the CTE line (on a cut to the left as shown).

Then show the line of travel of the CB if struck at its center.

Then show where the CB will contact the OB.

Then show the line to the pocket...BUT...the OB WILL NOT track that line due to CIT.

Is this image close to what you're describing? If not, I'll change the graphic for as long as you're willing to correct it until it's right.

That is one of the elements of the true genious of the system. It correctly accounts for CIT with a center ball hit.

Actually some instructors advise against the automatic use of outside to offset CIT and rather, recommend that the shooter pick the CORRECT contact point for the cut not the GEOMETRIC contact point...which is the WRONG point given a center ball hit.

Which is amazing, and yet another reason why I would love to learn this system. I'm more of a visual learner personally, so seeing an image of it makes things easier (at least for me, and possibly for others).

I changed the image a bit and used a single pivot point (say 12-14") and put two object ball up there. It looks like they will be undercut a little. Did I get the pre-pivot aim line correct?

 

[CueAndMe]

Great image. I found this interesting too when I discovered it about 300 posts ago in this thread. But the problem is that this pivot will only work for one row of balls. Shift the angle of the row of balls slightly and you need a different pivot for that row of balls.

 

[av84fun]

No...you either don't read my posts carefully or have comprehension difficulties. It is a truism that some teachers are poor teachers and some students are poor students.

Therefore, we cannot necessarily blame the teacher, for the students poor achievement.

Therefore, your suggestion that by criticizing your over brief and misleading explanation I was necessarily criticizing Hal, your logic is busted all to hell.

And don't whine about being criticized by me. You have dumped on me repeatedly so just man up and debate like a big boy.

Nothing I post to you or about you is personal.

Jim

Jim, a couple of things. First, I want to thank you for finally giving some instruction. Now we can all see how you go about placing your bridge hand. I still don't see how the 1/4" bridge hand placement makes the center to edge pivot system any more foolproof, but I truly thank you for sharing what you know.

Second, I think you owe Hal an apology. In your efforts to discredit me, you actually discredited Hal's method by saying that my description of it had so many holes that you could drive some sort of large vehicle through it. I actually spent the time to learn it from him. You say you only talked on the phone with him years ago, tossing out his method immediately. I don't see how you can assume that you know the method better than I. My description is exactly Hal's description -- nothing added, and nothing left out. And if you're attacking me, you're attacking him.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Hey Dave,
Sorry I didn't jump in before this. Short and sweet. Don't ask me to explain it, I don't have a clue why it works(don't care actually). For me this was a Paradigm Shift( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...:official&hs=mlz&q=paradigm+shift&btnG=Search ) in the way I go about playing this game. I've played pool for about 25 years and I've never come across anything that has the potential to help improve my game the way this will. In thirty minutes or less that you and your friend spent with me, I'm positive I'll move my game up a level, with some diligence on my part.
Is it the 'Be All/End All' system, probably not, but it's one hell of a potent weapon to have in your arsenal.
For all you doubters and nay sayers...I'm here to tell you this system will improve your game. If you'll only open your mind and put your negativity, ego, animosity<<< you choose...aside.
Gotta go...League night:grin:

Ernie:

It was a real pleasure meeting you! You made my day with that post.... I'm happy the info helped you. I remember when I first learned... I felt the same way you do. It's like a different game. You'll never look at the balls the same again.

Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

The use of feel, subconscious aim, muscle memory, eye memory or intuitive judgement (whatever people choose to call it) does not mean such a method is inaccurate.

While the best snooker players use some aspects of a system (referencing CB center and OB contact point usually), they rely very heavily on intuitive judgement and they are very arguably the most accurate potters of all the cue sports.

If something is purely systematic, that means that all aspects of that system can be referenced such that a robot could replicate that system based on methods of calculation using the data points included in the system.

The CTE systems being discussed may be the best thing since sliced bread, but that doesn't mean they are totally systematic. In fact, I've never been surer (based on the explanations of its proponents) about that than now.

This might seem to some a bit of a semantic argument, but it is at the heart of the why and how of these systems, which is crucial to explaining them clearly.

There are many fine snooker players, who when told they are not actually aiming the center of the cue through the CB center in a line to the contact point will be very surprised, if not angry. That knowledge may in fact send their game backwards for a while, but it may also help their game break through levels that were holding them back due to their limited understanding of aiming.

Bridge positioning does matter in CTE systems and varies according to cut angle and distance between CB and OB. Working out how to place the bridge (then pivot) or how to air pivot to that line requires a lot of practice to burn into memory.

Calculation systems could achieve this, as they could tell you how to hit 347/664ths of the CB, but that doesn't mean a calculation system can be easy to implement. It does seem however, that with practice, and an intuitive judgement method for bridge placement or air-pivot line, the implementation can be honed with very good accuracy.

Colin

 

[claymont]

Ernie:

It was a real pleasure meeting you! You made my day with that post.... I'm happy the info helped you. I remember when I first learned... I felt the same way you do. It's like a different game. You'll never look at the balls the same again.

Dave

It's a shame you can't get people to 'Just Do It!!!'. I gave my son a brief lesson Sunday night, he was amazed it was so simple. He hasn't played in a while and after a half hour or so, he was making some decent shots. I played pretty sporty myself tonight; probably go try my luck in one of the local tournaments tomorrow night:winknudge:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Oh, here we go again Patrick...so NEVER again accuse me of being a dictionary terrorist! You bring it on yourself.

Actually, Jim, you bring it on yourself.

"Instinct" and "intuition" are not analogous because they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things. They do NOT "agree" with each other in any respect.

They do NOT "resemble" each other in any respect.

You seem to be the only person on the planet (although I have no proof of that part) who thinks so:

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/intuition.html

in-tu-i-tion [ intoo ish'n ] (plural in-tu-i-tions)
noun

Definition:

1. instinctive knowledge: the state of being aware of or knowing something without having to discover or perceive it, or the ability to do this


2. instinctive belief: something known or believed instinctively, without actual evidence for it

LOL. Buy a vowel, Jim.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

For Use With CTE or Ron Vitello Aiming

Some might think this is extreme, but it isn't.... not at all. I spoke to Jerry from NYC Grind at the Million Dollar 9-ball and just seeing him reminded me to do a video of throwing your cue. I learned this from Nick Mannino nearly 10 years ago. I believe he picked this up from Gene Nagy. At the time, I couldn't incorporate it into my game because my stroke and aiming weren't up to snuff yet.

I use this technique all the time. Although I say you should only stay on the vertical axis of the CB while throwing, you don't have to at all. In fact, it's extremely effective for all shots. I mention vertical axis because I personally use it to cinch crucial shots. When used with Vitello's system or CTE, it removes the human element of b1tching your stroke. Can you b1tch your throw? I guess. Nerves make you tighten-up and turn your cue...making the CB squirt and voila... you miss like a loser.

You can't steer the cue or tighten-up when the cue is spearing straight through the CB.

I thought I'd post this here in the Hal Houle thread. If you use CTE and you miss, maybe you're steering because you're not trusting the system. Experiment with this... it's easy to learn and will make (save) you moolah.

http://www.poolvids.com/view/52/throwing-your-cue/

 

[LAMas]

Is this image close to what you're describing? If not, I'll change the graphic for as long as you're willing to correct it until it's right.



Which is amazing, and yet another reason why I would love to learn this system. I'm more of a visual learner personally, so seeing an image of it makes things easier (at least for me, and possibly for others).

I changed the image a bit and used a single pivot point (say 12-14") and put two object ball up there. It looks like they will be undercut a little. Did I get the pre-pivot aim line correct?

The graphic is more correct for the alignment of the cue alignment is now to the side (left) and parallel to the line from the center of the CB to the right edge of the OB.

If you move the pocket say 6" up the screen away from the balls and cue - the OB will go to the left rail and not the pocket.

If you move the starting cue line more toward the center of the CB or greater than the 1/4", you will find an offset that will pocket the OB with the pocket 6" upscreen - how much the offset must be is the question - I can use Acad to determine the offset. This can be done for all cut angles that result in their offsets being charted - such a chart would be usefull.

The problem is that this chart will not work for shots that have the distance between the CB and OB at 8 feet or 6 inches.

 

[cigjonser]

The graphic is more correct for the alignment of the cue alignment is now to the side (left) and parallel to the line from the center of the CB to the right edge of the OB.

If you move the pocket say 6" up the screen away from the balls and cue - the OB will go to the left rail and not the pocket.

If you move the starting cue line more toward the center of the CB or greater than the 1/4", you will find an offset that will pocket the OB with the pocket 6" upscreen - how much the offset must be is the question - I can use Acad to determine the offset. This can be done for all cut angles that result in their offsets being charted - such a chart would be usefull.

The problem is that this chart will not work for shots that have the distance between the CB and OB at 8 feet or 6 inches.

Yes, I see what you're saying. I moved the whole system to the right a bit (shrunk it too, it was a bit big), and using the same lines now neither shot will go into the corner pocket:

But I'm still not sure this is even the correct setup. If av84fun gives me corrections, I'll make them and we can see how it works out.

If any other system proponents would like to offer corrections to this, please do.

 

[CueAndMe]

But I'm still not sure this is even the correct setup. If av84fun gives me corrections, I'll make them and we can see how it works out.

If any other system proponents would like to offer corrections to this, please do.

Since he hates me now, I know he wouldn't want me being the one to correct you based on his instructions, but I think he meant 1/4 inch from center of the cueball, not 1/4 inch from the edge.
But I think you just proved to yourself and others that it wouldn't matter, because whatever pivot you use has its limits. Once you shift your solidified picture of lines and balls the pocket says goodbye.

 

[av84fun]

No but CLOSE. Now we're really getting somewhere.

Please adjust the image so that the V is .25 inside the CTE line. You have it .25 inside the edge of the CB. Also, the pocket is WAY too small relative to the balls. Make the pocket at the jaws double the width of the balls.

But there is something else wrong with the scale of your diagram. I know nothing about graphic arts but setting up your shot on my table and having my hand as far left as you do, the pivot results in missing the OB entirely...to the RIGHT...from 1 diamond distance and yet your diagram shows the hit being too THICK.

Not being into graphics I can't explain what is going on. However, it MIGHT be that the VISUALIZATION is different when sighting from the perspective of a pool player vs. viewing from directly overhead as is the case in your diagram and therefore an overhead view may never depict what the shooter sees.

Colin has a 3D sort of application so maybe you two could collabborate to show how the shots look from the shooter's perspective.

THANKS for your efforts.

Jim

Is this image close to what you're describing? If not, I'll change the graphic for as long as you're willing to correct it until it's right.



Which is amazing, and yet another reason why I would love to learn this system. I'm more of a visual learner personally, so seeing an image of it makes things easier (at least for me, and possibly for others).

I changed the image a bit and used a single pivot point (say 12-14") and put two object ball up there. It looks like they will be undercut a little. Did I get the pre-pivot aim line correct?

 

[cigjonser]

Great image. I found this interesting too when I discovered it about 300 posts ago in this thread. But the problem is that this pivot will only work for one row of balls. Shift the angle of the row of balls slightly and you need a different pivot for that row of balls.

I went back and looked at those posts you made way back. You're right, if there was more balls lined up it would be the same thing you had already discovered.

So far, it looks like the system can work, but might need more description to compensate for the apparent discrepancies shown by the images. Hopefully, a lot of people who use the system will give feedback and eventually the images will reflect the system in the same form as they are successfully using it.

Edit: Meant to say it IS the same thing you had already discovered, if there were more balls lined up it would look the same, too.

 

[av84fun]

Why don't you try a REAL dictionary. Ever heard of WEBSTER. TYPICAL of you to site MICROSOFT as your authority on LANGUAGE!!!


Main Entry:
in?tu?i?tion
Pronunciation:
\ˌin-t?-ˈi-shən, -ty?-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English intuycyon, from Late Latin intuition-, intuitio act of contemplating, from Latin intuēri to look at, contemplate, from in- + tuēri to look at
Date:
15th century
1: quick and ready insight2 a: immediate apprehension or cognition b: knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c: the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intuition

Yup...yup. I can just hear the little fledgling bird just before his first flight saying..."Gee I just got a FEELING I'm about to go flying!"

When, in fact, Mommy kicks him in the a$$ and he starts flapping his wings from INSTINCT...not "intuition.:

LOL

But Patrick, do go back and see if you can find some articles from the copies of My Weekly Reader that you probably have saved. There might be an article in there that is as good as what you got from MICROSOFT!!!

You make me LAUGH! THANKS!

(-:
Jim
PS: I don't buy vowels Patrick. Get 'em for free. But I'll sell ya all you want

Actually, Jim, you bring it on yourself.



You seem to be the only person on the planet (although I have no proof of that part) who thinks so:

LOL. Buy a vowel, Jim.

pj
chgo[/QUOTE]

 

[CueAndMe]

I went back and looked at those posts you made way back. You're right, if there was more balls lined up it would be the same thing you had already discovered.

So far, it looks like the system can work, but might need more description to compensate for the apparent discrepancies shown by the images. Hopefully, a lot of people who use the system will give feedback and eventually the images will reflect the system in the same form as they are successfully using it.

Actually, I think what you have are all the tools to come up with a better pivot system that takes into account these line-ups of balls. A system could probably be created based upon where either the line from center CB to OB edge hits on the rail, or the center CB to center OB hits on the rail. Or some other line you determine.

It wouldn't be the same as other (perhaps faulty) systems that tell you that if the CB-OB line points to a certain diamond you hit half ball, or 1/4ball or whatever.

What makes this different is that you can see that a line up of balls can be made with the same PIVOT. When it points in a certain direction, you pivot from a certain position. When it points in another direction, you pivot from another.

 

[av84fun]

ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO!!

The kid knows his $hit!

(-:
Jim

Some might think this is extreme, but it isn't.... not at all. I spoke to Jerry from NYC Grind at the Million Dollar 9-ball and just seeing him reminded me to do a video of throwing your cue. I learned this from Nick Mannino nearly 10 years ago. I believe he picked this up from Gene Nagy. At the time, I couldn't incorporate it into my game because my stroke and aiming weren't up to snuff yet.

I use this technique all the time. Although I say you should only stay on the vertical axis of the CB while throwing, you don't have to at all. In fact, it's extremely effective for all shots. I mention vertical axis because I personally use it to cinch crucial shots. When used with Vitello's system or CTE, it removes the human element of b1tching your stroke. Can you b1tch your throw? I guess. Nerves make you tighten-up and turn your cue...making the CB squirt and voila... you miss like a loser.

You can't steer the cue or tighten-up when the cue is spearing straight through the CB.

I thought I'd post this here in the Hal Houle thread. If you use CTE and you miss, maybe you're steering because you're not trusting the system. Experiment with this... it's easy to learn and will make (save) you moolah.

http://www.poolvids.com/view/52/throwing-your-cue/

 

[halhoule]

Pool

I Always Offer But They Never Listen. Ears Are Always Shut.
They Tell Me They Know It All.

Hal Houle