How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

[scottjen26]

Glad to see you here Stan!!!

Just to comment on the multitable diagram - This is something HUGE with CTE/Pro1. Patrick is correct in the fact that technically for mirror systems to work properly the tables should overlap at the rail gutters or at worst the edge of the cushion. But as far as determining which aim line/pivot to use with CTE/Pro1, all you need to visualize is roughly how thick or thin the shot would be to the approximate mirror pocket, the exact distance or angle rarely matters. Then you just visualize the CTEL and proper aim line, pivot and shoot! Just like with regular shots, the actual location of the pocket doesn't matter, just the general direction so you know which CTEL and aim line/pivot to use.

I don't even visualize the mirror pocket when choosing my alignment, I just look at how much I would have to cut the ball to send it to the pocket I'm banking too, and usually I have a very quick sense whether that would be a very thick, thick, thin, or very thin cut and I can quickly select my aim line and pivot from there. Obviously table conditions, speed, spind, etc. still need to be accounted for, but I've worked with certain default speeds/spins where I'm very accurate, and when I need to go "off the grid" I can still do so just like I would have the old way.

Just thought I'd mention this to add a little more detail for anyone looking for more CTE/Pro1 specific info. Sorry, not trying to get too far off topic...
Scott

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... the actual location of the pocket doesn't matter, just the general direction so you know which CTEL and aim line/pivot to use.

...

Just thought I'd mention this to add a little more detail for anyone looking for more CTE/Pro1 specific info. Sorry, not trying to get too far off topic...

This thread is about fractional systems, and CTE is the most-discussed fractional system on AzB, so...

Is CTE different from other fractional systems? It uses the same basic CB/OB alignments as they do, but it adds the "CTE visual" and "pivoting" - do these additions make CTE different in some important way? Let's compare it with Hal Houle's "3-angle" system.

During its popularity (years ago) the "3-angle" system was claimed by its users to be "exact" (meaning its three "system alignments" were enough to make all shots without any "adjustment"). It was immediately apparent to most that this claim couldn't be true, but "3-angle" users continued for a long time to insist that 3 angles (plus "pocket slop") was enough to make any and all shots without "user input".

CTE uses the same 3 system alignments as the old "3-angle" system did for its "starting alignments", but CTE admits they're not enough for all shots by adding additional system steps (the "CTE visual" and "pivoting") to refine and complete the aiming process. Does this mean CTE is different from other fractional "reference" systems? Yes and no.

CTE is different from other fractional systems because it adds steps that alert the user to the fact that the "system alignments" aren't the final aiming solution and must be refined further to make shots.

But CTE is the same as other fractional "reference" systems in that its additional steps still don't "prescribe robotically" the adjustments needed to get from highly visible system alignments to not-so-visible final aimlines. CTE's instructions to "acquire the visual" and "pivot" are acknowledgments that some kind of adjustment must be made - but the shooter, not the system, chooses which direction and how much to adjust from the system alignment. CTE instructs the shooter to make these choices, which is an improvement over fractional systems which ignore (or even deny) the need, but CTE doesn't actually "complete the aiming job" for the shooter any more than other fractional systems do.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

CTE isn't a fractional system.

That's like saying shishkebob is a fractional system when you only have 3 alignments and a pivot; yet, you can make any traditional shot on the table center-hole with it.

Your comment is easily disproved on a table. With any true fractional system, there WILL be gaps where you can't make the ball. There are no gaps with CTE, 90-90, shishkebob or any primary pivot aim system.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CTE isn't a fractional system.

That's like saying shishkebob is a fractional system when you only have 3 alignments and a pivot; yet, you can make any traditional shot on the table center-hole with it.

With it and whatever adjustments your "pivot" adds.

Your comment is easily disproved on a table.

You haven't been able to do that in the years we've discussed this.

With any true fractional system, there WILL be gaps where you can't make the ball.

We agree on that (unless you adjust, which is made easier by the system).

There are no gaps with CTE, 90-90, shishkebob or any primary pivot aim system.

We disagree on this. No news there.

My question about this is: why does it matter so much to you to believe that these systems are "exact"? What does that belief add to their usefulness for you?

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

My question about this is: why does it matter so much to you to believe that these systems are "exact"? What does that belief add to their usefulness for you?

pj
chgo

It's about time you ask a decent question. The reason why I believe they're exact is because when I'm shooting, the more exact I try to be in my procedure, the more center-hole it goes.

I'm not the kind of person to argue with you just to argue. On the contrary, you and I are probably very much alike in our analytical approach to pool. That said, if I REALLY felt I finagled my setup to make certain shots-- I'd say so and I'd agree w/ your post.

But alas--- I don't agree because I don't guess on my pivot, finagle my pivot, etc, and the balls fly into the center of the pocket. People usually think I look too mechanical when I play because I am--- very technical in my setup, address and pivot. That way, the balls go if I stroke straight.

 

[champ2107]

i think the fractional part only comes into play as a basic reference alignment for the visual and physical setup off the object ball combined with lines coming off the cue ball and the pivot. So i cant agree that it is a fractional aiming system even though on paper it may have the look of one. Like i have said a couple times already in this thread, it may have been a starting point or originally used as the foundation but thats it.

 

[champ2107]

if you are perfect in every setup and your stroke holds you will hit center pocket every time, but no one is perfect and for me i don't care what part of the pocket the ball goes in unless i need it to hit a certain part of it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The reason why I believe [CTE, 90/90, shishkebob, etc.] are exact is because when I'm shooting, the more exact I try to be in my procedure, the more center-hole it goes.

Me too, and I shoot entirely by feel.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

My question about this is: why does it matter so much to you to believe that these systems are "exact"? What does that belief add to their usefulness for you?

pj
chgo

Because when you get down on the shot you have to be confident that the shot line you are on is the right one.

This is the basis for the whole thing. In methods with a lot of guesswork or "feel" the shooter is often not entirely confident in the shot line he is on and this leads to indecision in the stroke.

But when there is a system for aiming that proves to be very exact at getting the shooter to the shot line - even for shots where the shooter has NEVER practiced - then that's where the trust in the system pays off big.

By saying that the system is not exact, which appears to be your biggest objection, you are saying that fidgeting and guessing is needed to make it work. You are saying that it does not work as presented but instead RELIES on the same type of guessing that you do when you play.

This is simply not true.

I mean it's simply NOT true.

The system leads you to the shot line. No guessing, no fidgeting, just 1-2-3 and you're down on the shot.

Now, if you want to point to people like me who are somewhat lazy in the application then you can say that there is some "sloppiness" in the system as presented BY ME. But if you look at people who really really really know it - who have taken the time to practice diligently as one should for any technique then these people are able to demonstrate it to a much higher level.

By the same token I can demonstrate how to use a jump cue on a level that is higher than most other people because I have spent so much time mastering that aspect of the game. In my hands a jump cue looks like a precise tool instead of a clumsy one. The truth is that the jump cue is the same good tool but the results one gets out of it depend on how much time one has spent mastering it.

These systems are equally precise with the only variable being the shooter. Now, you might want to jump on that and say, see the inexact human has to fidget to get the system to work......

That's not how it goes.....what it is is that that inexact human has to train themselves to be exact in their visual alignments. This comes through practice and diligent application of the system WITHOUT guessing and without second-guessing.

So in conclusion, the system, properly applied, is exact. There are no gaps, no places where one has to guess at the fullness of the hit or adjust consciously to make up for a deficiency in the system. Now a player may decide to adjust the fullness for purposes of shape or cinching the shot or to cheat the pocket but this is a conscious decision to go away from the exact shot line which was given by the system.

You can believe it or not but you can't change it no matter how much you claim it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

i think the fractional part [of CTE] only comes into play as a basic reference alignment for the visual and physical setup off the object ball...

That's the same way fractional alignments come into play for other fractional systems. The difference is that CTE "admits" more adjustment is needed when it says to continue with additional system steps.

...combined with lines coming off the cue ball and the pivot

"Visualizing" the lines and "pivoting" are the additional system steps that you choose how to make in order to complete the adjustment needed.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Me too, and I shoot entirely by feel.

pj
chgo

But you aim by fidgeting. Or you did.

When you get down on the shot, bridge hand formed, cue addressing the ball, you are still moving around looking for the shot line.

You shoot ok but you don't make every ball either. And the more difficult the shot the more you fidget.

So sure, eventually you settle on a line that you feel confident in but at what cost?

If we had a pure shot making contest between you and Dave I would bet the house on Dave. Now shot making isn't all there is to pool but it's the most important task to continue shooting and win the game. You can't be a good or great player without being a pretty good or great shotmaker.

What I can't understand is why you are carrying this torch?

You say repeatedly that you shoot entirely by feel. Which is not true because entirely by feel means you have no experience. Experience replaces feel. That's how it goes and you can't unring the bell. But I understand you to mean that you use no conscious discreet system to aim.

So with that why do you care what others do and how they talk about it? Is is it really that important in your life to continually put down something you yourself have zero interest in ever using or even actually trying?

This is why I said that the premise of the thread is flawed. You did not start it with the intention of helping anyone to understand these methods but only to say again that these methods aren't needed if one simply puts in the table time. In my opinion. It's the merry-go-round of "feel" vs "system" and you are determined to get someone to not only say that using a system takes "feel" but that it takes as much of it as you use and therefore is no better than what you already do to play pool.

Well Pat, I don't know how you play right now but if you still play the same way you did when we last met I don't think you honestly want to make a video of your technique and put it out there for everyone to see.

To be clear, you play decently, as good as me or possibly a touch better, but that's a battle of B-players as far as I see it. Neither of us has much to brag about when it comes to our form.

But if we never showed your face and only showed you as an anonymous player running some shot making drills - then the forum would have a field day running down your technique in my opinion if you were still doing what you did in 2009. But it works for you.

So why not live and let live? You get down on the ball and fidget until you find the right line and others stand up and look at the balls a certain way until they are comfortable with the alignment and they get down and are firm on the line they chose. Why do you feel compelled to hold their eyes open with toothpicks and project the word "feel" on them until they vomit?

 

[mohrt]

I agree that CTE is not like traditional fractional aiming, mainly because of the difference in procedure. With fractional aiming, you consciously make an effort to adjust to the correct aim line between the fractions. With CTE, the procedure is much more mechanical. We all agree that there are some unknown elements happening during this procedure, but the reality is that there is no fidgeting required. Once you get the hang of the pivot through practice, the confidence soars because you are not making conscious adjustments to make the ball go.

This is like someone unwilling to try a light switch on the wall because they have questions about electricity, how it works, and if it works at all. But if they'd just go flip the damn switch, they might notice the light comes on, even though they don't completely understand electricity.

 

[champ2107]

That's the same way fractional alignments come into play for other fractional systems. The difference is that CTE "admits" more adjustment is needed when it says to continue with additional system steps.

"Visualizing" the lines and "pivoting" are the additional system steps that you choose how to make in order to complete the adjustment needed.

pj
chgo

well the additional steps makes the system work and unique. If "you" feel like calling it a fractional system, im ok with that because that's your opinion and i dont really see any harm in it. But respect the fact that the system creator does not consider it a fractional system.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
...why does it matter so much to you to believe that these systems are "exact"? What does that belief add to their usefulness for you?

Spidey:
Because when you get down on the shot you have to be confident that the shot line you are on is the right one.

I believe this is the right answer - but we interpret its meaning differently. I interpret it this way: Because the system user believes CTE is "exact", he can stop doubting his own "instinctive" ability to learn and repeat shot alignments by feel. Removing this nagging doubt allows him to "get out of the way" of his own innate (subconscious) ability.

In methods with a lot of guesswork or "feel"...

That would be all methods.

...the shooter is often not entirely confident in the shot line he is on and this leads to indecision in the stroke.

Right. And this is where systems that claim to eliminate "feel" come in.

Still, most shooters learn to shoot "by feel" with complete confidence and reliability.

By saying that the system is not exact, which appears to be your biggest objection

My purpose is to show what kind of system CTE is, not to "object to" its inexactness. All systems are inexact.

..you are saying that fidgeting and guessing is needed to make it work.

You use words like "fidgeting and guessing", not me. I suppose you're trying to belittle other methods in comparison.

You are saying that it does not work as presented but instead RELIES on the same type of guessing that you do when you play.

Yes, that's what I'm saying (although I think "guessing" is your word intended to cast aspersion).

This is simply not true.

I mean it's simply NOT true.

If it's "simply not true", then you can simply show how. That's the nature of clear system steps: they're clear.

In my hands a jump cue looks like a precise tool instead of a clumsy one. The truth is that the jump cue is the same good tool but the results one gets out of it depend on how much time one has spent mastering it.

Sure, and the same is true of CTE, other fractional systems, and shooting by feel.

You can believe it or not but you can't change it no matter how much you claim it.

Same to you.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

remember when stans uses the term exact, he means that he has finally learned how to exactly describe and teach the system.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If we had a pure shot making contest between you and Dave I would bet the house on Dave.

And if we had a pure shot making contest between Dave and any number of better non-system shooters, he'd lose. So what? All this proves is that you don't understand what does or doesn't prove anything.

...entirely by feel means you have no experience.

This is pure semantics. Call it "shooting by experience" if you want. It's the same either way.

Is is it really that important in your life to continually put down something you yourself have zero interest in ever using or even actually trying?

The fact that CTE and every other aiming method relies on feel is not a "put down". You apparently think it is, since you use words like "fidget" and "guess" to belittle aiming by feel, but that's your bias, not mine.

It's the merry-go-round of "feel" vs "system" and you are determined to get someone to not only say that using a system takes "feel" but that it takes as much of it as you use and therefore is no better than what you already do to play pool.

Not true. As I've said throughout this thread, I think the fixed references that fractional systems add to aiming by feel can be useful and valuable to anybody (including me), not just to system users. By pointing out that CTE is also a fractional system and also does the same thing, I might increase interest in it for potential users who don't want a system that pretends otherwise.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

listen this is how it is. Cte/pro1 takes away the most amount of guess work or feel possible to make a shot then any other system. PJ in the end the system will teach you to just see the shot.

cte/pro1 is a stand alone complete aiming system, there are really three systems in one ,there is also a psr that is so solid it can not be taught any better and the same for the visual part of it and the body positioning. there is not a stronger system out there.

1/2 ball pivot system,90/90,etc these are all similar basic systems to each other and need a good amount of feel to make all shots. Sorry but this is my opinion from my experience. Do not attack me on this like before because it will not be pretty and i will unleash the truth, this time.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I agree that CTE is not like traditional fractional aiming, mainly because of the difference in procedure. With fractional aiming, you consciously make an effort to adjust to the correct aim line between the fractions. With CTE, the procedure is much more mechanical. We all agree that there are some unknown elements happening during this procedure, but the reality is that there is no fidgeting required.

Do you think everybody who aims by feel "fidgets"? Don't be sucked into using loaded terms because John and Spidey do it.

Once you get the hang of the pivot through practice, the confidence soars because you are not making conscious adjustments to make the ball go.

This is true of all aiming methods.

This is like someone unwilling to try a light switch on the wall because they have questions about electricity, how it works, and if it works at all. But if they'd just go flip the damn switch, they might notice the light comes on, even though they don't completely understand electricity.

You guys keep saying that, but what I hear is "practice long enough to learn the shots by rote and it will seem like there's no feel involved".

It doesn't make sense that there's no feel involved (although that's not easy for everybody to see) and nobody has ever been able to clearly describe the steps that supposedly replace feel - not even Stan on his own DVD. Until one of those facts change I'm not inclined to spend lots of time on a new system to replace my already functioning by-feel aiming.

Still, I think there are aspects of fractional systems like CTE that can be helpful even to "non-believers", and not just because they help with PSR. That's my point here.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

But you aim by fidgeting. Or you did.

When you get down on the shot, bridge hand formed, cue addressing the ball, you are still moving around looking for the shot line.

You shoot ok but you don't make every ball either. And the more difficult the shot the more you fidget.

So sure, eventually you settle on a line that you feel confident in but at what cost?

If we had a pure shot making contest between you and Dave I would bet the house on Dave. Now shot making isn't all there is to pool but it's the most important task to continue shooting and win the game. You can't be a good or great player without being a pretty good or great shotmaker.

What I can't understand is why you are carrying this torch?

You say repeatedly that you shoot entirely by feel. Which is not true because entirely by feel means you have no experience. Experience replaces feel. That's how it goes and you can't unring the bell. But I understand you to mean that you use no conscious discreet system to aim.

So with that why do you care what others do and how they talk about it? Is is it really that important in your life to continually put down something you yourself have zero interest in ever using or even actually trying?

This is why I said that the premise of the thread is flawed. You did not start it with the intention of helping anyone to understand these methods but only to say again that these methods aren't needed if one simply puts in the table time. In my opinion. It's the merry-go-round of "feel" vs "system" and you are determined to get someone to not only say that using a system takes "feel" but that it takes as much of it as you use and therefore is no better than what you already do to play pool.

Well Pat, I don't know how you play right now but if you still play the same way you did when we last met I don't think you honestly want to make a video of your technique and put it out there for everyone to see.

To be clear, you play decently, as good as me or possibly a touch better, but that's a battle of B-players as far as I see it. Neither of us has much to brag about when it comes to our form.

But if we never showed your face and only showed you as an anonymous player running some shot making drills - then the forum would have a field day running down your technique in my opinion if you were still doing what you did in 2009. But it works for you.

So why not live and let live? You get down on the ball and fidget until you find the right line and others stand up and look at the balls a certain way until they are comfortable with the alignment and they get down and are firm on the line they chose. Why do you feel compelled to hold their eyes open with toothpicks and project the word "feel" on them until they vomit?

That last line was pretty funny! :thumbup:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

there is also a psr [built into CTE] that is so solid it can not be taught any better

I disagree with this. I think other approaches to learning a PSR are probably "better" for that particular thing (because they're designed for it and are not just a side effect of an aiming system), but may be harder for some to learn for the same reason.

pj
chgo