Hal Houle

av84fun said:
In fact, if a datapoint exists, it is theoretically amenable to calculation.
Click to expand...

I understand that, and I agree. But I assume you mean there is a relatively simple way to determine your bridge position, besides some crazy mathematical formula like Colin's :D , otherwise you wouldn't be raving about the simplicity of the system.

Finally, your reference to SAM is a non sequitur because SAM is a fractional system and CTE/Pro One is not.
Click to expand...

True, I was just saying that even though people might believe seemingly impossible claims about systems (not necessarily yours), they still might be able to pocket balls and find it a useful reference.
 
JIm:
Since there IS a correct hand position it is irrefutable that such a position is subject to being determined systematically.
Click to expand...

Me:
This isn't irrefutable, and in fact I refute it.
Click to expand...

Colin:
I would say that there is a correct line, along which the bridge position can lie, in order to make any angle.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, Colin - let's not get bogged down in minutiae. The relevant question to this discussion is can enough correct lines be determined systematically in a way that can be used by an actual player during a game?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
This isn't irrefutable, and in fact I refute it. It's also the part that nobody seems able or willing to explain. All the rest of this yodeling and tapdancing is just "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

I guess I should be careful to say, once again, that the fact there's some feel involved in this system doesn't make it useless and doesn't make those who use it bad players.

pj
chgo

NOTICE: No eggs were harmed in the making of this post.
Click to expand...

Excuse me...I should have said that known values are subject to calculation by people who know how to calculate them....which, in this instance, excludes you.

Patrick is is REALLY sophmoric of you to DEMAND that a system that you cannot even define adequately is based on "feel" in whole or in part.

That is just SILLY.

DEFINE the system YOU are referring to and let reasonable minds judge whether your argument that "feel" is required.

WHY won't you do that Patrick? Shadow boxing may be good exercise but you cannot win the bout.

Jim
 
Colin Colenso said:
In referring to a "correct bridge position" for any pot angle, I would say that there is a correct line, along which the bridge position can lie, in order to make any angle.

That is assuming no english and no/or same throw.

Colin
Click to expand...

RIGHT Colin!

(-:
 
av84fun said:
Excuse me...I should have said that known values are subject to calculation by people who know how to calculate them....which, in this instance, excludes you.

Patrick is is REALLY sophmoric of you to DEMAND that a system that you cannot even define adequately is based on "feel" in whole or in part.

That is just SILLY.

DEFINE the system YOU are referring to and let reasonable minds judge whether your argument that "feel" is required.

WHY won't you do that Patrick? Shadow boxing may be good exercise but you cannot win the bout.

Jim
Click to expand...

Well we're going around in circles here again, and you've said you won't reveal the system, but let me jump in here anyway. I'm not sure why you're so angry at Patrick, but since the system (so far explained), is aim CTE, align bridge to one side of center CB, then pivot to center -- without further explanation it would seem that "feel" is required for that precise placement and pivot.
 
DEFINE the system YOU are referring to
Click to expand...

I've done that, Jim, so far as I know it. What I don't know about it is the part you won't describe - how you place your bridge hand in the correct position. Since there are, as you say, an infinite variety of possible positions, how do you systematically choose among them?

The mere fact that you can't explain that, even in rough terms, is an obvious suggestion that it doesn't happen systematically - that there's significant "feel" involved in the operation of this crucial step in the system. Your propensity to get LOUD AND EMOTIONAL rather than factual in your denials of that only make it more obvious.

Why all the emotion? It's not an insult to suggest that you use instinct or "feel" in your aiming. We all do.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Well, of course, Colin - let's not get bogged down in minutiae. The relevant question to this discussion is can enough correct lines be determined systematically in a way that can be used by an actual player during a game?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
That's the holy grail Patrick,
Until then, just trying to clarify the bifurcations.:wink:

Colin
 
PKM said:
I understand that, and I agree. But I assume you mean there is a relatively simple way to determine your bridge position, besides some crazy mathematical formula like Colin's :D , otherwise you wouldn't be raving about the simplicity of the system.



True, I was just saying that even though people might believe seemingly impossible claims about systems (not necessarily yours), they still might be able to pocket balls and find it a useful reference.
Click to expand...

Correct. And the brilliance of the system is its utter simplicity CONCEPTUALLY.

It's like Newton's laws...which sound like a 4th grader could have written them.

I say "conceptually" since the "rules" are simple but must be executed by human beings.

Ironically, it is the intrusion of the "feel" that Patrick writes about that SCREWS the system up...not make it work!!

One of the most difficult things to overcome when adapting to the system is to REJECT your intuitions that cause you to disbelieve the line of aim that the system calls for.

But let me make one thing VERY clear. Aiming...even PERFECT aiming is NOT the determing factor in advanced pool.

Give me a pill to take that will A) let me see 100% optimal routes and B) control the CB to within 5% of my intended position and I will promise never to use anything other than intuitive aiming for the rest of my life.

Regards,
Jim
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Well, of course, Colin - let's not get bogged down in minutiae. The relevant question to this discussion is can enough correct lines be determined systematically in a way that can be used by an actual player during a game?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

TOO FUNNY! Every time someone points out how your are wrong, they are getting bogged down in minutiae!

THANKS for the belly laugh...really!

(-:

Jim
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I've done that, Jim, so far as I know it. What I don't know about it is the part you won't describe - how you place your bridge hand in the correct position. Since there are, as you say, an infinite variety of possible positions, how do you systematically choose among them?

The mere fact that you can't explain that, even in rough terms, is an obvious suggestion that it doesn't happen systematically - that there's significant "feel" involved in the operation of this crucial step in the system. Your propensity to get LOUD AND EMOTIONAL rather than factual in your denials of that only make it more obvious.

Why all the emotion? It's not an insult to suggest that you use instinct or "feel" in your aiming. We all do.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Really? You posted a detailed description of the system you argue must rely on feel? I missed it. Please direct me to any such post.

And I HAVE posted a "general" description of the system...in this thread just a few posts up.

And just because I don't feel at liberty to post the EXACT DETAILS does not mean that I "can't" as you so incorrectly stated.

Just because you would not be inclined to post your VISA card number, your Social Security number and your mother's maiden name does not suggest that you CAN'T...does it Patrick?

In FACT, you have NOT posted any detailed description of the most recent CTE/Pro One system because you have no clue what those details are but you STILL demand that it is based importantly on feel.

As other credible posters have stated, there IS NO FEEL associated with the system...at least not the baseline, centerball aspect of the system. NONE!

But YOU say there IS...even though you have not and apparently will not communicate with the people who CREATED the system.

If you listen carefully, you may hear an awful sucking sound which is your credibility going down the drain.

FIRST you should understand the system and THEN criticize it.

Just trying to help you out here.

(-:
 
av84fun said:
TOO FUNNY! Every time someone points out how your are wrong, they are getting bogged down in minutiae!

THANKS for the belly laugh...really!

(-:

Jim
Click to expand...

Glad you're amused, but can we stick to the topic?

How do you choose where to place your bridge hand? If it's a simple system that should be a simple question.

You don't have to give away any proprietary secrets - a rough conceptual description will do, just enough to suggest it's possible to do mechanically.

pj
chgo
 
av84fun said:
Really? You posted a detailed description of the system you argue must rely on feel? I missed it. Please direct me to any such post.

And I HAVE posted a "general" description of the system...in this thread just a few posts up.

And just because I don't feel at liberty to post the EXACT DETAILS does not mean that I "can't" as you so incorrectly stated.

Just because you would not be inclined to post your VISA card number, your Social Security number and your mother's maiden name does not suggest that you CAN'T...does it Patrick?

In FACT, you have NOT posted any detailed description of the most recent CTE/Pro One system because you have no clue what those details are but you STILL demand that it is based importantly on feel.

As other credible posters have stated, there IS NO FEEL associated with the system...at least not the baseline, centerball aspect of the system. NONE!

But YOU say there IS...even though you have not and apparently will not communicate with the people who CREATED the system.

If you listen carefully, you may hear an awful sucking sound which is your credibility going down the drain.

FIRST you should understand the system and THEN criticize it.

Just trying to help you out here.

(-:
Click to expand...

That's a lot of words to say you still refuse to explain it. Thanks anyway; I'll look elsewhere.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Glad you're amused, but can we stick to the topic?

How do you choose where to place your bridge hand? If it's a simple system that should be a simple question.

You don't have to give away any proprietary secrets - a rough conceptual description will do, just enough to suggest it's possible to do mechanically.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Never mind, Jim. It's apparent that you're unwilling or unable to answer this question, and I don't want to seem like I'm just harrassing you, so I retract it.

No worries; I'll learn what I can elsewhere.

pj
chgo
 
Possible Proof that Pivot Systems Need Adjustment:

Colin, I'm reposting these pictures from the "mathematical aiming system" thread you created, because they are incredibly relevant to resolving the pivot system arguments. If the graph below actually represents the variety of pivots/bridge hand adjustments required to pocket the variety of labelled shots, then way back in November of 2005 you had already proven that one or two pivots do not fit all shots. Thanks for sparing me from having to create my own experiments. I'd rep you up and down, but I did so too recently.

I agree that if the Pro One system can place the bridge hand in a simpler way than you explain here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=21113&page=3
then it would certainly be a fantastic system. But (no matter how much you will protest Jim) looking at your graph and seeing how many subtle adjustments would have to be made, I doubt very much that it can do all of the math on its own. Which is probably the reason it took so long for someone like a Landon Shuffett, who is perfectly capable of making a good stroke, to adopt it.

Adjustment%20Graph.JPG

Adjusted%20Bridge1.JPG
 
SpiderWebComm said:
here's the system...

u sight center to edge, put your cue on one side, pivot back to center for nearly every shot in pool.

the part that hasn't been discussed is....

..... are u a boob guy or an ass guy? LMFAO
Click to expand...

Colin, I didn't know you are in Australia. I had no problems with Hal on the phone, which is how I learned. Just as SWC is quoted above, it is that simple. For me, cue on the left side. It doesn't matter how far the cue is to the edge, you're not aiming with the cue. Aim the center of the cue ball at the edge of the object ball, place tip where you will be able to move the cue ball to the next shot. Make the ball, rinse, repeat. Hal did tell me something about thin cuts and moving the tip to the other side of the cue ball, but I'm not just sure what it was that he said, and I haven't been able to call him recently.
I sincerely suggest you talk to him or Stan yourself, it's the only way you'll really know for sure.
 
bluepepper said:
Colin, I'm reposting these pictures from the "mathematical aiming system" thread you created, because they are incredibly relevant to resolving the pivot system arguments. If the graph below actually represents the variety of pivots/bridge hand adjustments required to pocket the variety of labelled shots, then way back in November of 2005 you had already proven that one or two pivots do not fit all shots. Thanks for sparing me from having to create my own experiments. I'd rep you up and down, but I did so too recently.

RESPECTFULLY, YOUR THESIS IS FLAWED. THERE ARE NOT MERELY ONE OR TWO PIVOTS. THE PIVOT IS A FUNCTION OF THE CTE LINE WHICH IS INFINITELY WITH THE CB/OB POSITIONS.

IF SOMEONE SUGGESTED THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO PIVOTS ON A PLAYGROUND SEE SAW...I.E. UP AND DOWN...THEY WOULD BE WRONG BECAUSE THE SEE SAW ITSELF CAN BE MOVED.

TO MERGE THE ANALOGY, YES YOU CAN ONLY PIVOT LEFT OR RIGHT BUT THE CB/OB MOVE SO THERE ARE A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF PIVOTS RESULTING THE THE CUE POINTING DOWN A LINE OF AIM THAT WILL DIRECT THE OB TO THE POCKET.

I agree that if the Pro One system can place the bridge hand in a simpler way than you explain here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=21113&page=3
then it would certainly be a fantastic system. But (no matter how much you will protest Jim) looking at your graph and seeing how many subtle adjustments would have to be made, I doubt very much that it can do all of the math on its own. Which is probably the reason it took so long for someone like a Landon Shuffett, who is perfectly capable of making a good stroke, to adopt it.

View attachment 74382

View attachment 74383
Click to expand...

Respectfully, what you are missing is that all the math and charts and graphs are entirely unnecessary and only serve to complicate what is in fact a SIMPLE process.

There are NO subtle adjustments in the baseline, center ball ASPECT of the SYSTEM. Everything is ROTE and systematic.

No one who knows what they are talking about has ever stated that ONE aspect of the SYSTEM will pocket ALL shots.

It would be helpful if everyone would "listen up" and not require multiple comments on the same subject.

A car is a SYSTEM. The brakes will NOT make the car go forward and the accellerator will not make it stop.

Having said the above, there are NOT very many "components" to the system and the need to access each one of them is blatantly obvious.

As I have stated previously, the system itself is really quite simple. Ironically, the problem is...and what surely takes some time is the process of NOT making "feel based adjustments" that will defeat the system and cause you to miss...just like you have missed identical shots in the past.

IMPORTANT POINT!!!!!!!!!!

If the system is correctly understood and executed, it will fail only due to human intervention. That is true with "feel aiming" as well. But there are great champions who aimed a shot by feel...executed the shot perfectly...and missed because their feel aim was wrong.

That would NEVER be true with CTE/Pro One. Misses have to be a function of getting carless with setting up correctly...or by a poor stroke...or by the imposition of english which AFAIK has not and cannot be reduced to a rote system.

But because we MUST use english to play pool, no one in their right mind would suggest the CTE/Pro One is anything resembling a Holy Grail.

In fact, advanced aiming is a DISTANT second skill...at best...to shape-related skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top