Hal Houle

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

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.

IMPORTANT COMMENT

It is a mistake...and one that I have made out of convenience...to lump Center to Edge together with Pro One in the sense that not all comments about one is true with the other.

Pro One is what Stan calls Phase 3 of a system based upon Hal Houle's work on the Center to Edge system.

Pro One's concepts are unique to Stan and address the FEW limitations of Phases 1 and 2. It is in Phase 3 or "Pro One" where FEEL or "skill derived from trial and error" comes into play.

Regards,
Jim
 
Jim, I know you're passionate about the new system you learned. But if you don't want to describe it, please, I beg you, just drop it. You probably posted 1/3 of all of the posts in this thread and have yet to teach us anything. They've all been either go see Stan posts or empty, unproven arguments. I keep reading your posts anyway hoping one of them will actually teach me something, but sadly it's just been a big waste of time on my part.

If Stan has a magic trick that does the math and allows you to place the bridge hand into the perfect position, then I'd like to know that trick. But I doubt he does, and I doubt it's much different from Hal's system which has only 2 pivots, and hence only 2 bridge placements.
 
bluepepper said:
Jim, I know you're passionate about the new system you learned. But if you don't want to describe it, please, I beg you, just drop it. You probably posted 1/3 of all of the posts in this thread and have yet to teach us anything. They've all been either go see Stan posts or empty, unproven arguments. I keep reading your posts anyway hoping one of them will actually teach me something, but sadly it's just been a big waste of time on my part.

If Stan has a magic trick that does the math and allows you to place the bridge hand into the perfect position, then I'd like to know that trick. But I doubt he does, and I doubt it's much different from Hal's system which has only 2 pivots, and hence only 2 bridge placements.
Jim's posts have taught me much more than your posts. There is no magic, no math, and no physics, just a whole lot of balls going center pocket.
 
cookie man said:
Jim's posts have taught me much more than your posts. There is no magic, no math, and no physics, just a whole lot of balls going center pocket.

You're giving Jim credit for teaching you how to pocket balls? Was this done by private message? Apparently you're the only one he'll share his method with.
Like I said before, I know pivoting works. And you're right, there is no magic except the magic of human instinct that allows you to pocket balls center pocket. But there's always physics, and there's probably always math, both of which I wish I understood better.
 
cookie man said:
Jim's posts have taught me much more than your posts. There is no magic, no math, and no physics, just a whole lot of balls going center pocket.

Thank you sir!!! (-:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepepper
Jim, I know you're passionate about the new system you learned. But if you don't want to describe it, please, I beg you, just drop it. You probably posted 1/3 of all of the posts in this thread and have yet to teach us anything. They've all been either go see Stan posts or empty, unproven arguments. I keep reading your posts anyway hoping one of them will actually teach me something, but sadly it's just been a big waste of time on my part.

If Stan has a magic trick that does the math and allows you to place the bridge hand into the perfect position, then I'd like to know that trick. But I doubt he does, and I doubt it's much different from Hal's system which has only 2 pivots, and hence only 2 bridge placements.


Bluepepper, you are dead, flat wrong. The number of my posts in this thread is nowhere NEAR 1/3 of the total.

So, if you're going to complain about something, you would be wise to base your complaint on FACTS and not falsehoods.

You SAY that you have read my posts but if I accept that as true, then I can only conclude that your reading comprehension skills are serious deficient.

But since I AM trying to contribute, I will say this ONE more time...in terms I think that grade school students would easily grasp.

1. The pivot causes the cue to be pointed in a specific direction.
2. That direction is a function of the CTE line which, in turn, is a function of the position of the CB and OB relative to each other.
3. The positional relationship between CB and OB is virtually infinite.
4. Therefore, the number of directions arrived at by the pivot is also virtually infinite.
5. THEREFORE, the base CTE system SELF-ADJUSTS based upon the position of the CB and OB and determines by ROTE SYSTEM the correct line of aim as the CB and OB changes positions.

I did not start this thread bluepepper. I have posted here solely to correct the MULTITUDE of misconcpetions about this VERY valuable system including references to it as a "fractional" system in spite of the fact that it has no relationship to ball fractions whatsoever.

I have tried to guide interested parties off the the WRONG path onto the RIGHT path.

For the record, in my newly established role as a BCA Recognized Instructor, I have communicated PRIVATELY with certain individuals who have made an effort to obtain first hand information about CTE but I have not and WILL not discuss in public or in private, the central elements of the PRO ONE level of this multi-phase system.

If you do not like the fact that I am unwilling to violate confidences by disclosing information that I have promised not to disclose, then you are of course, free to lump it.

Regards,
Jim



Regards,
Jim
 
SpiderWebComm said:
At the highest level, there's only 1 bridge placement---addressing the CB dead center.

You know I completey respect you as a poster here on AZ and the total internet guru that you are.

Can we just cut to the chase? You post as if you are aquainted enough with the details of all of this and your post about Bustamante in another thread is the only reason I am paying attention to this.

If you want to tout this or any system, then tell us exactly why you think it works. Otherwise, quite honestly, your original post about Bustamante seems disingenuous.

If you think I need to pay for the info then just say it. Otherwise unfortunately, your intent is not clear.
 
T said:
You know I completey respect you as a poster here on AZ and the total internet guru that you are.

Can we just cut to the chase? You post as if you are aquainted enough with the details of all of this and your post about Bustamante in another thread is the only reason I am paying attention to this.

If you want to tout this or any system, then tell us exactly why you think it works. Otherwise, quite honestly, your original post about Bustamante seems disingenuous.

If you think I need to pay for the info then just say it. Otherwise unfortunately, your intent is not clear.

I'm very tired about being clear on here. Sometimes something can be SOOOOOOOO simple and perfect that it's hard to believe it. It's literally so perfect, it's beautiful.

My post about Bustamante was 100% true. I spoke to him twice... once before he started his first session and once during a smoke break behind the tournament room. Each time he was saying he couldn't imagine aiming any other way - and that Filipinos are taught center-to-edge very early on.

As far as charging people, I'll never charge anyone for the info. I'm just not educating the world on this forum. Ask anyone who saw me at the Million Dollar Challenge. I'm not exaggerating... I must've shown 20 people center-to-edge. Everyone who recognized me, cornered me.

Some picked it up in 5 seconds and ran off giggling (no shit), and others needed over an hour (I wouldn't quit until they "got it"). I made sure everyone thought their "spiderwebcomm" experience was time mega-well-spent. I even covered a bunch of banking systems with a few people. I'll tell you what.... I was really into it... when I was in go-off-mode I was showing people everything I knew. If you want my help, see me in person... or go to the source: RonV, Stan or Hal.

If you look at my Non-Traditional Banking video, I explain vaguely how I pivot in the air and slide into the CB along my "CB-center" line. I'm not hoarding info, shit, I'm making videos discussing it. I don't hit super details because you haven't invested a year into manually pivoting to get to the point where the info would help you.

Getting back to your comment....

What I meant about my last post was exactly what I meant--- I address the CB dead-center. Meaning, I pivot in the air...not at the table. SOOOOO.... while every pool detective on here keeps posting worthless posts about bridge placement adjustments, offset adjustments, pivot lengths, etc.... I roll my eyes, literally. Thank God for Visine... it's hard to read sometimes.

I don't always address my tip to center. If I want english, I pivot (in the air) to my english position (starting from my offset position in the air- not CB center).

The C players in this thread will read this and scratch their heads... but if you've manually pivoted as long as I have... you see it. It's NOT feel, I just "see" it from repetition (manual repetition).

Honestly, I don't know why it works. I mean that sincerely. If I asked Django why it works, I'd bet my nuts he'd have no clue. The only one who probably really knows why it works is Hal, truthfully. I'm not even sure Stan Shuffet and Stevie Moore know why it works..... which leads me to a point earlier in the thread....

Who cares....it works. My guess is the math is pretty complicated based on "what's going on."

I'm not being a dick, so please don't think that. Some people like to hang out on here and work on proofs and use math no one has used since 11th grade while the rest of us perfect the system and make balls center-hole all the time. I honestly feel like when I take the time to do it right, the ball automatically goes....end of story. I'm starting to "release" my cue through CB impact, throwing it if you would, to eliminate any human error that could screw up the system. Working pretty sporty.

I hope this answers your post.

EDIT:

Since I'm an oracle and see the future VERY clearly when it comes to things like this..... eventually, you, Pat, Colin, BluePepper, BreanNRun, everyone on this forum.... and everyone in the world....will aim with this system and base your entire game on it. Some will change later than others because ego won't allow them to let their guard down and spend time with someone who really knows this shit. However, in the end, everyone and every feel player will eventually migrate to center-to-edge/Pro1 or Ron Vitello's system.

I see a future where ALL of the instructors across the country start beginners on it as opposed to the ghost ball.

You probably think I'm a pretty wacky guy for saying that. Time will tell, and you heard it here first. Maybe 1 year, maybe 5 years, but no later than 10 years. ALL depends on egos.
 
Last edited:
But since I AM trying to contribute, I will say this ONE more time...in terms I think that grade school students would easily grasp.

1. The pivot causes the cue to be pointed in a specific direction.
2. That direction is a function of the CTE line which, in turn, is a function of the position of the CB and OB relative to each other.
3. The positional relationship between CB and OB is virtually infinite.
4. Therefore, the number of directions arrived at by the pivot is also virtually infinite.
5. THEREFORE, the base CTE system SELF-ADJUSTS based upon the position of the CB and OB and determines by ROTE SYSTEM the correct line of aim as the CB and OB changes positions.

Jim, these 5 satements still and will continue to teach nothing. They only allude to a possibility of a self-adjusting technique. I accept that there's a possibility. I doubt that there is, but I accept that the possibility is out there.

But again, all I'm asking is that you stop reworking the same Pro One teaser into new posts. It just makes threads too difficult to sift through. Your posts are often very long, which I don't mind, if they have new things to say, but if you were to go back and read through your posts in this thread, I think you'd realize that you haven't revealed any new technique. You've either been a Shuffet pitch man or a Patrick hater. Teach us something. I'm ready to learn.
 
T said:
You know I completey respect you as a poster here on AZ and the total internet guru that you are.

Can we just cut to the chase? You post as if you are aquainted enough with the details of all of this and your post about Bustamante in another thread is the only reason I am paying attention to this.

If you want to tout this or any system, then tell us exactly why you think it works. Otherwise, quite honestly, your original post about Bustamante seems disingenuous.

If you think I need to pay for the info then just say it. Otherwise unfortunately, your intent is not clear.

It doesn't really make any difference why it works. It could be a variety of different reasons and trying to force anyone to provide answers that will satisfy you or anyone else by suggesting the things you have suggested is poor posting. I'm just guessing but it's probably a number of different reasons why it works.

To suggest that SpiderComm's post about Bustamante being disingenuous is a low blow and I think you owe him an apology.

You hint at one good point and I don't see any problem with you or anyone else to pay for some lessons regardless of the subject matter.

Your post reeks of jealousy or animosity but definitely not respect and your comments about respecting him is far closer to being disingenous than anything SpiderComm said about Bustamante.

JoeyA
 
JoeyA said:
It doesn't really make any difference why it works. It could be a variety of different reasons and trying to force anyone to provide answers that will satisfy you or anyone else by suggesting the things you have suggested is poor posting. I'm just guessing but it's probably a number of different reasons why it works.

To suggest that SpiderComm's post about Bustamante being disingenuous is a low blow and I think you owe him an apology.

You hint at one good point and I don't see any problem with you or anyone else to pay for some lessons regardless of the subject matter.

Your post reeks of jealousy or animosity but definitely not respect and your comments about respecting him is far closer to being disingenous than anything SpiderComm said about Bustamante.

JoeyA

It's ok, Joey. No apology required, I promise. The fact is... I have the heart to walk up to Bustamante... pull him aside, and get the info without fear. The reason why I'm VERY knowledgeable with this is because I go RIGHT to the top of the world to get it.... not AZB. I'm not downing anyone.... everyone has the right to question and doubt.

People, if you want to know this stuff and get the DETAILS... go to the people we keep mentioning. Django won't instruct, he'll just confirm. If I was a "student of the game" like many claim to be on here, I'd hop on a plane and see the aforementioned instructors. Pool meant that much to me to GO AND FIND OUT. I always felt... worst case scenario, it's a vacation. I've never felt that way, however. I always felt like I came home from Pool MIT.

Dave
 
SpiderWebComm said:
The C players in this thread will read this and scratch their heads... but if you've manually pivoted as long as I have... you see it. It's NOT feel, I just "see" it from repetition (manual repetition).

I'm a C player, but isn't that the same as feel?
 
PKM said:
I'm a C player, but isn't that the same as feel?

PKM,

Thanks for asking this. When I typed that, I KNEW someone was quoting that and throwing that question over the fence (I didn't expect it to be you, I thought it would be one of two other people).

The answer is no, it's not feel. It's systemic. Meaning, if you do the EXACT same thing over and over and over (running through a system), you KNOW your position before you get there. Feel never comes into play.

Feel is not running through a systemic process and basing your position on past experience and what makes your brain THINK the ball's going in the hole.

Watch my 14.1 practice on poolvids and watch my cue prior to getting to the table. My positioning is always the same. Not by feel, but by process.

I hope this helps and clears up that point. Once again, good question.

Dave
 
Please, I know my challenge was harsh, but I want to get to the point and understand either why this works or why it doesn't.

Maybe I should explain better where I am coming from.

I see a sense of propriety when it comes to information regarding what I think should be common advice. Respectfully, I have spent money taking pool lessons that at times seem to be shaped more about putting money into pockets rather than anything that trully helps my personal understanding and love of the game.

I have had the blessing in the past of having some of the best trainers in the world helping me with music, sports, etc, but I have never seen the greed when it comes to what I think should be common knowledge shared among peers that I have seen in pool.

Thanks Spiderman for splaining what you are talking about. I challenged you, but I didn't doubt you. :D
 
SpiderWebComm said:
At the highest level, there's only 1 bridge placement---addressing the CB dead center.
Well said. But I also think it's important to address the CB at the core with the tip as close as possible to the CB. If you are 1/2 a tip off, you will miss the shot. Once I establish my aim through the core of the CB, then I will pivot my bridge hand to apply english if needed.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
PKM,

Thanks for asking this. When I typed that, I KNEW someone was quoting that and throwing that question over the fence (I didn't expect it to be you, I thought it would be one of two other people).

The answer is no, it's not feel. It's systemic. Meaning, if you do the EXACT same thing over and over and over (running through a system), you KNOW your position before you get there. Feel never comes into play.

Feel is not running through a systemic process and basing your position on past experience and what makes your brain THINK the ball's going in the hole.

Watch my 14.1 practice on poolvids and watch my cue prior to getting to the table. My positioning is always the same. Not by feel, but by process.

I hope this helps and clears up that point. Once again, good question.

Dave

Thanks for the response, I was hoping you didn't take that question the wrong way, I am genuinely curious about the system. I still think that's what many people would consider feel, but I don't know enough about the system to see why it might be different. I checked out your vids, it's hard to see what you're doing there.
 
Then Why Not Teach Every One. I Did. You Did Not. You Said You Had The Money To Do Anything In Pool. Where Were You Teaching Any And All Students. Where Was Your Aiming System. And You Are Chastizing Me Because You Got The Message Too Late ?????
Humbug
 
SpiderWebComm said:
At the highest level, there's only 1 bridge placement---addressing the CB dead center.

Dave, were pretty much on the same team here but I'm not sure I understand the above.

Since the CB is round..."addressing the CB dead center" can mean a lot of things.

If the reader assumed you meant dead center in relation the the CTE line, that would not be correct because simply aiming through the center of the CB to the edge of the OB merely produces a half ball hit.

I KNOW that advanced users don't even think in terms of determining a specific hand placement...they just land correctly due to repetitive practice...just like you don't have to look at the keyboard keys after a while...but you DO have to look at them at first, and since there are so many readers who are beginners at the system or who haven't even tried it, I'm trying to speak to Level 1...or Level 0...and to that audience, IMHO the bridge hand placement is CRITICAL and has to be learned mechanically at first.

For those interested, first place your bridge hand 4 inches to the left of the CTE line...point the tip to the edge of the CB and pivot to the center. You will see that you will miss the whole OB!

Do the same thing from the right and DITTO.

So, now we have established that bridge hand placement DOES matter. So, where the hell do you place it.

There are several different ways to explain that which is why those who think that simple breif text can teach much of anything are mistaken. (You don't read a book and then go drive a car...at least not MY car!)

GENERALLY, the shaft needs to be a LITTLE offset from the CTE line. It should be outside the line on a cut to the right and inside the line on a cut to the left.

How much? Say 1/4 inch. But the shaft is angled to the CB when you move into the shot so that inside/outside placement is a little difficult to determine.

So, for Level 1...the purely mechanical level that everyone should start on, I have developed a couple of methods myself and therefore, don't mind posting them.

If you imagine the CTE line....and if you can't do that then forget about the whole enchalada...and extend it back from the CB toward you...place your hand so that the CTE line is directly under the inverted V formed by the index finger of your closed bridge.

Push up to your normal bridge length keeping that inverted V RIGHT ON TOP of the CTE line...like it was a track while pointing the cue tip to the outside edge of the CB.

When you get to your normal bridge length, stop...and pivot ALONG THE HORIZONTAL CENTER OF THE CB...to dead center.

THAT is your aim line and if you look, you should see that the V formed by your thumb and index finger of your bridge hand is just about 1.4 inch offset from the CTE line.

Start by setting up pretty easy cuts ...10 degrees and 2 diamonds from the pocket and 1 diamond CB/OF distance and DO NOT take a full backstroke. The shot should be short enough so that lag speed on the CB is plenty so just take a SHORT...Allen Hopkins backstroke of maybe an inch and stroke straight throuh the center of the cb.

All you're doing is trying to verify the accuracy of the aim line...not play pool at this stage.

Then, replace the CB to where it was and move the OB a half ball for a little more angle and do the same thing. Keep doing that...in both directions until you PASS the half ball hit.

Shoot 5 different cut angles 5 times each in both directions for a 50 shot series.

Approach each shot like it was the 9 ball for the match and DO NOT set up longer shots before you have done the 50 shot series. If you race ahead, then don't blame me if you start missing.

As SpideyDave said (I think) this is a PROCESS and if you don't use a building block approach then missing will be your own fault and not that of the system.

If you have trouble PM me. I have now reached the limit of what I am going to post on the forum and won't say much more in PMs at this time...I'll only try to explain the above with different words.


But at this point, you should see that there is NO feel or intuition or any need for subconscious adjustments....dealing of Tarot cards or Gregorian chants necessary.

It is a ROTE system that will work for a HUGE range of cut angles...AS LONG AS THERE IS AN AVAILABLE POCKET i.e. if the OB is frozen to a long rail and the CB is directly across the table on the same diamond line...sorry folks but there is not pocket available for the shot so you bank it or duck.

This is an aiming system not voodoo! And the beauty of it...even at Level 1...is that when the system runs out of gas it is OBVIOUS and you resort to plan be and eventually get to Level 2 and then Pro One at which point you will use CTE on almost every shot...just like Django.

Finally....I'm TRYING to be helpful here and to the extent that sharp comments have passed BACK AND FORTH that is unfortunate.

But there have been a LOT of dismissive posts...you are subconsciously adjusting...you don't understand what you are actually doing...the method cannot work...etc. posted by people who have NO IDEA how the system works and sorry...that is just intellectual laziness and/or closed-mindedness which makes me want to YUKE!

(-:

Jim
 
This is just a quick sketch, so sorry for the ugliness of it.

There is a red CB and a blue CB, each with three lines associated with it. One goes from the center of each CB to the "ghost" ball, the second goes from the center of each CB to the edge of the OB, and the third is the inital line the cue stick is on before pivoting (parallel to the CTE line).

pivotimage.gif


It looks like the pivot point must change from shot to shot depending on distance and angle. As the lines show, the blue CB has a much closer pivot point than the red one does. Does the CTE system deal with this with the bridge hand placement somehow?

I'm genuinely asking and please don't take this as some kind of proof that the system is flawed or that the pivot point must necessarily change on each shot. Since I'm assuming the system works this apparent discrepancy will somehow be accounted for, I just can't get my head around that part of it.

If it matters the "red" shot is about 10 degrees and the "blue" one is about 48 degrees (roughly).
 
  • Like
Reactions: PKM
Back
Top