Hal Houle

[Scott Lee]

Pete...I don't feel it is necessary to significantly tighten the grip on the break. There is some small amount of tension in the grip, because of the speed of the swing, but not so much that (for example), if I broke with an open hand bridge (I don't), the cue would lift off of my bridge hand (which happens with excessive grip pressure). However, Colin and I go different directions with our style of break swing, and body movement...each of us with our own success...so I'd say the same thing he probably will...different strokes for different folks, and leave it at that!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Hey Scott,

Just to toss out there, Colin said on his break video (if my memory holds true) that he tightened the grip, I think at impact with the cue ball.

Could either or both of you chime in with your opinions?

Pete

 

[Pete]

Pete...I don't feel it is necessary to significantly tighten the grip on the break. There is some small amount of tension in the grip, because of the speed of the swing, but not so much that (for example), if I broke with an open hand bridge (I don't), the cue would lift off of my bridge hand (which happens with excessive grip pressure). However, Colin and I go different directions with our style of break swing, and body movement...each of us with our own success...so I'd say the same thing he probably will...different strokes for different folks, and leave it at that!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Thanks Scott, and Colin.

Pete

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, although I believe that different angles of line-ups of balls require different bridge offsets/pivots from the CTE line, there is something special going on. As object balls move away from the cue ball on a single line (perhaps only on a line drawn from center to their edges, but perhaps not) the same pivot can pocket most or all of those balls.

It's an interesting geometric observation, but I don't think that particular aspect has anything special that would allow it to be utilized in any practical way.

Colin

 

[CueAndMe]

It's an interesting geometric observation, but I don't think that particular aspect has anything special that would allow it to be utilized in any practical way.

Colin

Maybe not, but I think it's interesting enough to look at a little more closely. When the CB(center) to OB(edge) line points to the first diamond away from the pocket, you pivot from, say, a 20" bridge. When it points 4 diamonds away, you pivot from, say, a 6" bridge. These are both from a constant cue offset from center CB.
Or maybe you can use a constant bridge distance and alter the offset from center CB before the pivot. Just examples of potential.

 

[av84fun]

Good luck, though it's all been done before.

What you will find is the same thing we know, and that is that for the various cut angles and distances between CB and OB a different offset from the CTE line to the bridge position is required.
That would be fine if there were an actual system to describe how to make this adjustment. However there is no simplistic system, just some guides that a few use to get them in the ballpark and the rest is repetition and trial and error until the player learns to see / feel / intuitively judge that bridge position.

In relation to some guides that get you in the ballpark, they take a form similar to:

If the cut is over 30 degrees (cutting to the left) the bridge hand goes to the left of the CTE line. If less than 30, the bridge hand goes to the right of the CTE line.

For wider angles and straighter angles, and depending on the distance between the balls, variations in amount of offset in these directions can be used, such as 1/2 tip, 1 tip or even at edge of CB.

0.25 inch left or right of CTE line cannot possibly work for all shots. In fact, it would only work for a few set angles at certain distance separations. More options would open up by changing the length of the bridge, but such a method is not really what is being advocated, at least in a truly systematized way.

The adjustment is largely intuitive and developed with experience. This shouldn't offend the users. The system works for players who train with it, that's good, it just means the system has not completely broken the mould of aiming methods. It does not find the angle for the player, it just helps the player to learn how to find the angle.

It is a very different aiming method than traditional methods, hence it appears quite magical. I think it has certain advantages. But I am not convinced that players using this system will ever pot as well or better than the best aimers / most accurate potters in the world.

Colin

You are absolutely wrong Colin. I place my hand EXACTLY in the same position relative to the CTE line...every time...every shot....except on VERY thin cuts and/or when the CB/OB are VERY close together.

And when I say "absolutely wrong" I mean FLAT, UTTERL, POSTITIVELY, NO S$IT WRONG.

If you and other math whizzes would spend as much time consulting with someone who can SHOW you how to use CTE as you do denying the truth, your potting percentage would improve considerably.

RE: very thin cuts I have a method that works fabulously for A) cuts that are VERY thin but CAN be over-cut and cuts that cannot be overcut.

But I won't mention them to you because you'll just tell me that they don't work either.

(-:

Jim

 

[av84fun]

Whatever observations you can add are appreciated Dave.

Just hope thinking about it too much doesn't put you off your game

I'll continue to try the method based on my understanding of it.

Colin

Colin, with respect, you seem to blow hot and cold. Above you seem to be genuinely interested in this method but in a nearby post, you stated point blank that it does not and cannot work without a required repositioning of the bridge hand which, if true, would destroy the "systematic" nature of the method.

If you wish to approach this topic in a truly "scientific" manner then you should withhold comments that it cannot work until you understand the recommended dynamics of the system.

Just IMHO. And where do you live these days? Last I knew you were in the Orient but headed back to OZ?

You STILL have one of the best break shot demonstrations I've ever seen.

Try to explain THAT in text only!!!

(-:

 

[av84fun]

There is no perspective in an overhead view.

Anyway, in a perspective view all your parallel lines would converge, not just the edges of the balls. The mechanics at the cue ball remain the same as in your drawing.

pj
chgo

The CTE line is not parallell to anything (of significance). It is a SINGLE line that intersects two points in space.

Get out your beloved protractor and describe two circles of identical diameter both centered on a given line.

Beyond the 2nd circle, describe a third that is centered on the same line but that is half the diameter of the first two.

The 3rd circle would simulate a ball that is more distant than the 2nd and therefore APPEARS to be smaller.

The pool player must use the APPEARANCE of objects in 3D and not the ACTUAL size of objects in 2D.

Now draw a line from the center of ball #1 to the left edge of Ball #2.

Then draw a line from the center of Ball #1 to the left edge of Ball #3.

Do those lines point in the same direction?

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The CTE line is not parallell to anything (of significance). It is a SINGLE line that intersects two points in space.

Get out your beloved protractor and describe two circles of identical diameter both centered on a given line.

Beyond the 2nd circle, describe a third that is centered on the same line but that is half the diameter of the first two.

The 3rd circle would simulate a ball that is more distant than the 2nd and therefore APPEARS to be smaller.

The pool player must use the APPEARANCE of objects in 3D and not the ACTUAL size of objects in 2D.

Now draw a line from the center of ball #1 to the left edge of Ball #2.

Then draw a line from the center of Ball #1 to the left edge of Ball #3.

Do those lines point in the same direction?

Jim

The OBs are lined up with their edges on the same line as the CB's center.

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, with respect, you seem to blow hot and cold. Above you seem to be genuinely interested in this method but in a nearby post, you stated point blank that it does not and cannot work without a required repositioning of the bridge hand which, if true, would destroy the "systematic" nature of the method.

If you wish to approach this topic in a truly "scientific" manner then you should withhold comments that it cannot work until you understand the recommended dynamics of the system.

Just IMHO. And where do you live these days? Last I knew you were in the Orient but headed back to OZ?

You STILL have one of the best break shot demonstrations I've ever seen.

Try to explain THAT in text only!!!

(-:

Jim,
I don't think I'm hot & cold. I think you and Dave are friends. When I disagree with one or both of you, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't infer that I don't like them or disagree with everything they say. Though I know criticizing a point can offend some. I try to put my criticisms in the form of questions to clarify sometimes but that makes for some pretty boring reading. Some readers like to know where you stand from time to time, so stating my opinion is part of that. And a large part is trying to learn things I haven't previously known about these systems.

Back to the other questions now:

I thought it was pretty well established through various discussions and by geometrical proof that for the system to find the aim line, the bridge hand must be offset by various amounts from the CTE line.

In fact, if anyone can make an overhead video with see through grid, showing the bridge, cue ball and OB, using the same bridge length at the same distance (offset) from the CTE line, with CB and OB in the same positions and make shots of about 20 degrees and 40 degrees then I will send them $200.

It seems to me, that this is what you are claiming you can do?

I won't hold back on my comments because I believe I know a lot about these types of methodologies. I've done extensive diagramming and calculations on them and also done a lot of real practice with them over the past few years. I have my theories on why certain aspects work. I also never stop hearing new explanations about how it works and various methods of adjustments, but rarely do two people ever have the exact same interpretation.

Yes, I haven't talked to Hal. I figure if he could explain it then one of the many here who have called him could explain what he told them in terms of exactly how they make the pivot adjustment in a systematic way that makes sense.

If someone asks about Joe Tucker's Aiming system or CIT or BHE then people who have read articles or watched videos or used the systems don't have too much problem explaining it.

I actually think Dave is explaining it well. He sees the line to the center of the CB. He doesn't do this according to any mechanical system to adjust. He just knows how to adjust it seems.

Attempts to describe the adjustment (and there has to be an adjustment while we live in this dimension, else we'd only hit the CB along the CTE line), have never made sense. Some are offered but never in detail.

Maybe Stan's system has a different approach, but I think we should stick with purely Houlian systems and their explanations for now. They work for players, the question is how the adjustments are made, and that is why there is so much focus on any mechanical explanations for the adjustments, because many who have looked into, and even used the system don't believe there is one.

I must be really boring some readers now.

The next question:
I moved back to Australia from China about 18 months ago. Didn't have my US table up for most of that time so was entertaining myself with a bit of snooker and english style pool. Made the semi final in the Aussie 9-ball Nationals last year, not long after I got here. Just getting back into the game recently. Would love to qualify for the world champs, preferably 10-ball, some day but don't want to be a full time player. Just happy to learn US pool a little better and to stroke and aim well enough to test various systems / methods and to produce the odd instructional video. Some people actually appreciate my contrarian paralytic analysis.:shocked:

Maybe after all this head banging we'll work out what we actually agree on re: CTE / Houlian systems.

Colin

 

[Majic]

Jim,
I don't think I'm hot & cold. I think you and Dave are friends. When I disagree with one or both of you, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't infer that I don't like them or disagree with everything they say. Though I know criticizing a point can offend some. I try to put my criticisms in the form of questions to clarify sometimes but that makes for some pretty boring reading. Some readers like to know where you stand from time to time, so stating my opinion is part of that. And a large part is trying to learn things I haven't previously known about these systems.

Back to the other questions now:

I thought it was pretty well established through various discussions and by geometrical proof that for the system to find the aim line, the bridge hand must be offset by various amounts from the CTE line.

In fact, if anyone can make an overhead video with see through grid, showing the bridge, cue ball and OB, using the same bridge length at the same distance (offset) from the CTE line, with CB and OB in the same positions and make shots of about 20 degrees and 40 degrees then I will send them $200.

It seems to me, that this is what you are claiming you can do?

I won't hold back on my comments because I believe I know a lot about these types of methodologies. I've done extensive diagramming and calculations on them and also done a lot of real practice with them over the past few years. I have my theories on why certain aspects work. I also never stop hearing new explanations about how it works and various methods of adjustments, but rarely do two people ever have the exact same interpretation.

Yes, I haven't talked to Hal. I figure if he could explain it then one of the many here who have called him could explain what he told them in terms of exactly how they make the pivot adjustment in a systematic way that makes sense.

If someone asks about Joe Tucker's Aiming system or CIT or BHE then people who have read articles or watched videos or used the systems don't have too much problem explaining it.

I actually think Dave is explaining it well. He sees the line to the center of the CB. He doesn't do this according to any mechanical system to adjust. He just knows how to adjust it seems.

Attempts to describe the adjustment (and there has to be an adjustment while we live in this dimension, else we'd only hit the CB along the CTE line), have never made sense. Some are offered but never in detail.

Maybe Stan's system has a different approach, but I think we should stick with purely Houlian systems and their explanations for now. They work for players, the question is how the adjustments are made, and that is why there is so much focus on any mechanical explanations for the adjustments, because many who have looked into, and even used the system don't believe there is one.

I must be really boring some readers now.

The next question:
I moved back to Australia from China about 18 months ago. Didn't have my US table up for most of that time so was entertaining myself with a bit of snooker and english style pool. Made the semi final in the Aussie 9-ball Nationals last year, not long after I got here. Just getting back into the game recently. Would love to qualify for the world champs, preferably 10-ball, some day but don't want to be a full time player. Just happy to learn US pool a little better and to stroke and aim well enough to test various systems / methods and to produce the odd instructional video. Some people actually appreciate my contrarian paralytic analysis.:shocked:

Maybe after all this head banging we'll work out what we actually agree on re: CTE / Houlian systems.

Colin

I find these Hal Houle threads most entertaining. It seems everyone has their own idea of how something is to be validated, especially with aiming systems. And for the most part that validation is part of the persons make up and the differing opinions is what makes these threads interesting.
I personally have spoken with Hal and Ron a few months ago and found the systems that they explained to me to work. And that is the CTE type aiming and I recently aquired a copy of Bustamante vs Reyes playing rotation at the derby and I see Busty pivoting his cue left to right almost all the time. Maybe he can provide the type of explanation that you are looking for. Or perhaps his subconscious is doing all the aiming. or it is just feel, or it is intuitive or he has everyone fooled.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You are absolutely wrong Colin. I place my hand EXACTLY in the same position relative to the CTE line...every time...every shot....except on VERY thin cuts and/or when the CB/OB are VERY close together.

Jim

Jim,
As I've said, if you can prove this on video, I'll send you $200. I expect some others might be willing to throw some money in too.

All you need is a still overhead camera. The grid lines could actually be overlayed on the video later.

The 'same position' means that the bridge position is at the same (or very close) distance from the CB and the CTE Line. The CB must be struck as close to center axis as possible.

Then make shots of 20 and 40 degree angles. Give or take a couple of degrees.

Maybe you'll say this can't work from one single position. If so, use a set up as shown below. The red points are the same bridge position relative to the CTE line and the CB for both angle cuts.

Colin

 

[CueAndMe]

Now draw a line from the center of ball #1 to the left edge of Ball #2.

Then draw a line from the center of Ball #1 to the left edge of Ball #3.

Do those lines point in the same direction?

Jim

No, but you're lining your balls up the wrong way. They should be lined up like this in order to determine if perspective is a factor. It's a single line, no perspective comes into play.

CueTable Help

 

[CueAndMe]

Jim,
As I've said, if you can prove this on video, I'll send you $200. I expect some others might be willing to throw some money in too.

All you need is a still overhead camera. The grid lines could actually be overlayed on the video later.

The 'same position' means that the bridge position is at the same (or very close) distance from the CB and the CTE Line. The CB must be struck as close to center axis as possible.

Then make shots of 20 and 40 degree angles. Give or take a couple of degrees.

Maybe you'll say this can't work from one single position. If so, use a set up as shown below. The red points are the same bridge position relative to the CTE line and the CB for both angle cuts.

Colin

Colin, I think the angles should be 40 and 60, since the Houle method has a different pivot for shallower angles like 20.

 

[av84fun]

The OBs are lined up with their edges on the same line as the CB's center.

pj
chgo

No...if the CENTERS of the circles are on the same line, then a line from the center of #1 to the edge of #2 will not be pointed in the same direction as a line from #1 to #3 because, being smaller, the edge of #3 does not extend as far, laterally as #2.

Taking it to the table, a CB/OB are placed on the same line of centers they would, obviously, be centered on the same line.

But if the OB is moved away from the CB...but on the SAME line of centers, then under the laws of perspective, it would APPEAR smaller...therefore, its edges would not APPEAR to extend as far laterally and therefore, a line extending from the center of the OB to the APPARENT edge of the farther OB would not point in the same direction as a line to the edge of a closer...and apparently larger OB.

Correct?

If not, you are good at diagrams, so please post one that shows the above is incorrect.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

Colin, first, Dave and I are not "friends". I've never met him. And in the past, we have had some frank differences of opinion. But, I RESPECT him and have SEEN him on video making shots and banks from all over the place and I believe he is a no nonsense guy who would be the FIRST to debunk fairly tale methods.

As for your diagram, you need to define what you mean by "bridge position" in reference to the red dot. The bridge hand spans several inches so what PART of the bridge does the red dot represent?

In fact, when the pivot is completed, it APPEARS to me that the shaft is slightly INSIDE the CTE line on cuts to the left and slightly OUTSIDE the line on cuts to the right, so if your red dot is supposed to represent the shaft, you have it on the wrong side of the CTE line.

As for overhead video and manufacturing grid lines and posting that video to the internet I have NO CLUE how do to that...and am not interested in getting a clue.

All I can say is that, following the specific procedures I have posted...which involve the consistent placement of the bridge hand relative to the CTE line, the vast majority of shots go...DEAD CENTER and certainly the 20-40 degree cuts that you describe.

Regards,

Jim

Jim,
As I've said, if you can prove this on video, I'll send you $200. I expect some others might be willing to throw some money in too.

All you need is a still overhead camera. The grid lines could actually be overlayed on the video later.

The 'same position' means that the bridge position is at the same (or very close) distance from the CB and the CTE Line. The CB must be struck as close to center axis as possible.

Then make shots of 20 and 40 degree angles. Give or take a couple of degrees.

Maybe you'll say this can't work from one single position. If so, use a set up as shown below. The red points are the same bridge position relative to the CTE line and the CB for both angle cuts.

Colin

 

[cookie man]

Jim is right. Did you guys try this on a table?? It works

 

[av84fun]

No, but you're lining your balls up the wrong way. They should be lined up like this in order to determine if perspective is a factor. It's a single line, no perspective comes into play.

CueTable Help

I am no expert on the dynamics of perspective, so I'll just bow out with this.

Below is a railroad track of 10 feet of length. If you are standing at the bottom center, between the tracks and point to the upper left of the track, you will point along angle X


l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l

Below is a railroad track a mile long. If you stand at the bottom center and point to either side, your pointing angle will be zero (the "vanishing point" in perspective.

Therefore, it seems to me and with no pretensions of expertise on this subject, that BOTH sides of a distant object appear to change positions...narrower....as distance from the viewer increases.

In your diagram and as Patrick suggests, the TRUE edges of the balls are in fact, on the same line. My point is that they don't APPEAR to be.

Regards,
Jim


^

 

[stan shuffett]

Any of the 6 balls go using PRO/ONE-CTE. They are simple phase 1 shots. 1 of the 2 learned pivots will make each ball. If one doesn't work then try the other.

Of note....if you're looking at each shot as if it's a half ball shot used in the quarters system then you're in trouble. Part of learning the CTE/PRO ONE is learning where to position your eyes and body. The eyes lead the body. Many times if you get right behind the CB, you're in big trouble.

The system is a VISUAL one. All players/students that learn the system will learn a new way to aim....it's visual. Users of the PRO ONE/CTE will mature with the system and it will become very easy.

Thanks to Hal Houle.........Landon called Hal within 15 minutes after he won the nationals this year to personally thank him.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Patrick Johnson]

In your diagram and as Patrick suggests, the TRUE edges of the balls are in fact, on the same line. My point is that they don't APPEAR to be.

If you sight through the CB's center at the OB's edge, as I believe you've described CTE methodology, they all appear to be on the same line. Perspective plays no part.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Stan, I've removed all but the first and last balls for clarity, so I could ask a question.

CueTable Help

The cue ball has the same center-to-edge alignment with the 1 ball and with the 6 ball, but the aim line to make both shots is clearly different (as shown by the two black arrows going from the cue ball through the ghost balls). Is the difference in aim from the 1 ball to the 6 ball accomplished by a strict adjustment "formula" given by the system, or is it an adjustment that must be learned over time with practice and experience (presumably aided by the system)?

pj
chgo