LAMas , CTE is not literally a half ball hit. You don't stand directly on a half ball hit line. It's just your 1st visual
John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems
- Thread starter PoolSharkAllen
- Start date
LAMas , CTE is not literally a half ball hit. You don't stand directly on a half ball hit line. It's just your 1st visual
LAMas,
With a close up shot, your diagram is accurate. As the distance between the balls increases, I have to angle my cue to allow for squirt. the difference is, as you stated, I make a parallel shift. I want the squirt as WP1987 pointed out. But in a consistent, repeatable, controlled manner.
My body is shifted an imperceptible amount off of center. I am not angled as much as an english stroke. The direction of my alignment makes up for less cue angle.
After using the system, you find swerve to be less of a factor due to the firm, not hard stroke. I can shoot a soft, yet firm stroke which sounds counter intuitive, but is possible with the "accelerating" stroke. It feels like you are trying to continuously hit firmer throughout the stroke. If you quit on the stroke, bad results happen. When done right, it feels like you hit the sweet spot on a baseball bat, or golf club. Yet, your speed is not too fast and out of control.
Good post! :smile:
Best,
Mike
Here's a couple of things I've noticed about using a touch of inside. Several times over the past couple of weeks I've lined up bad on long rail shots. I've actually contacted the rail just past the side pocket and had the balls still drop into the corner pocket. I'm shooting at 4" pockets where there is only about a tip's width of play down the rail.
Shooting that same shot with outside makes the object ball move away from the rail as soon as it contacts it, with little chance of going in. With the touch of inside, the ball slides off of the rail and doesn't grab/rebound as much. Yes, I know... Didn't you know that? No lessons, please. Just a positive observation for the plus column.
Another note is the ability to feel when I'm truly cueing at dead center. After training my tip position to be a hair inside on a majority of shots, I understand where center ball is better. I have the ability to judge a hair off of center, so I'm able to detect it and actually be more accurate with the middle of the cue ball. My stop shots stop dead, no spin. A by-product of default cueing to the inside.
Best,
Mike
This is what I would call helping english.
Here's a couple of things I've noticed about using a touch of inside. Several times over the past couple of weeks I've lined up bad on long rail shots. I've actually contacted the rail just past the side pocket and had the balls still drop into the corner pocket. I'm shooting at 4" pockets where there is only about a tip's width of play down the rail.
Shooting that same shot with outside makes the object ball move away from the rail as soon as it contacts it, with little chance of going in. With the touch of inside, the ball slides off of the rail and doesn't grab/rebound as much. Yes, I know... Didn't you know that? No lessons, please. Just a positive observation for the plus column.
Another note is the ability to feel when I'm truly cueing at dead center. After training my tip position to be a hair inside on a majority of shots, I understand where center ball is better. I have the ability to judge a hair off of center, so I'm able to detect it and actually be more accurate with the middle of the cue ball. My stop shots stop dead, no spin. A by-product of default cueing to the inside.
Best,
Mike
Not sure what's the shot your shooting Mike but you can almost shoot any shot on the pool table with inside and outside.Just have to adjust different.
Hi Anthony:
That's my point -- I'm not saying either way is more of a guarantee to pocketing the ball. What I am saying, is this: it is very easy to "fall into" the trap of relying upon "pocket slop" as "part of your aim." That last part is most important -- "as part of your aim." I liken it to target shooting -- instead of going for that bullseye -- and making sure you hit it -- pool players are happy to land anywhere within the outermost target circle on the target board. E.g. "I scored, didn't I?" "The ball went in the hole, didn't it?"
The issue is not the technique itself; it's the thinking behind it, or rather, the lack of thinking -- and lack of acute awareness -- of what you finally hit when the object ball went in the hole. Did you really hit what you were aiming at? Or are you satisfied that your arrow went anywhere within the outermost circle on the target board (i.e. "the ball went in the hole, didn't it?")? There can be a level of laziness there -- whether you're aiming at center pocket, or using "assists" like CJ's technique.
What I'm advocating, is to pay attention to what you hit within the pocket, not "just that you scored." Many alternative aiming techniques -- which, compared to other cue sports, mind you, I'll point out you find only in pool -- try to cover up the lack of accuracy in cueing by extending the already generous pockets in pool, and making that pocket slop part of the aiming process. Just be careful with that.
I posted a reply to a question in the Snooker forum as to why snooker players are so accurate on equipment that is much more demanding than pool equipment. Hopefully this might provide some more info?
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3819147#post3819147
And, I sincerely hope I answered your question?
-Sean
There is a difference though between pocket slop and aiming. Actually aiming in a way that makes the pocket larger is a skill. Knowing how to do this as well as to also aim accurately for any part of the pocket comes from knowledge and practice.
If one watches Efren play then you can see that Efren often uses the rails to make balls. He does this primarily for position reasons giving himself a greater range of ways to play position. In contrast Earl Strickland pockets balls by rarely touching the rails and forces position often. Both methods work and both players can and do use the opposite methods when they want to.
To me slop means that players only generally aim and rely on the forgiveness of the pockets. When a player is deliberately aiming to use the rails or insure that the margin of error is increased more to one side then that really has little to do with slop.
Also I'd like to add that CTE works perfectly on 6x12 snooker tables as well as the Chinese 8 ball tables which are 9ft with snooker cut pockets. I proved this to a group of AZers in Shanghai last month. So please don't include this method in any description that says it hides inaccuracies by using the width of pool pockets.
Last edited:
That's dead-on right, John. I agree. But the question then becomes, "how many players you know that embraced these techniques, are actually knowingly using those rails for position, or pushing the pocket slop to one side and then watching where they actually hit"? Or are they blindly accepting success (i.e. "I scored, didn't I?")?
CJ's technique of pushing the pocket slop to one side of the pocket is definitely exploiting the characteristics of pool equipment -- intentionally. And he's doing it, knowing which part of the pocket he actually hits. But how many will embrace the technique, and not pay attention to these details?
I guess I liken it to robbing Peter to pay Paul, or to "moving things around" without actually fixing the problem. When aiming at center pocket, why aren't you hitting center pocket? Or why are you missing when aiming at center pocket? That's the root issue. Sure, it might be helpful to "move things around" (i.e. push the margin of error to one side of the pocket), but why does the error exist in the first place?
I hope this helps clarify,
-Sean
Sorry I didn't catch this last-minute revision, John.
CTE working in pool, to me, is a no-brainer. It works. There's no argument there.
But until I see a very accomplished player on a snooker table using CTE, I'll stand fast in what I wrote in that other thread. You mentioned that you "proved" this to a group of AZBers in Shanghai. Do you have a video of that? If so, I'd love to see it. (And the reason I ask, is because there was one other poster who shall remain nameless [he's banned anyway], who posted a video of attempts to use CTE on a 12x6 snooker table, and his rate of potting success was around the 30-40% mark -- and he was staying within the bottom-half of the table for all shots.)
Honestly, I'd love to see that. I'd love to see a 50 (or higher) break on a snooker table using that technique.
-Sean
Last edited:
The error exists because we are human. We rise to the occasion. Snooker players are more accurate because the have to be, it's required. But they don't automatically win against pool players on pool tables simply because they are more accurate shot makers.
This discussion here isn't about general players and what they do or don't do. It's about about what we are doing and whether we find benefit in it or not and if so then why.
Willfully using the available space to cinch the shot is not playing with slop. It's increasing the target so as to have more room to make the shot. When the pockets are tighter, as they were when Shane ran a 7 pack on the TAR table then the margins shrink accordingly. Still Shane managed to adjust and rise to the demand.
Anyone can flinch, the ball can skid, the earth can shudder, error exists because no one is a perfectly machine capable of robotic precision. Increasing the margin of error is also human and something we are uniquely capable of and which we do in just about all trades in some way or another to make our lives easier and get the job done.
No I don't have a video. I was throwing out shots and making them from all angles in front of witnesses. Would you like them to chime in to back me up?
Doesn't matter, it works. It works on less than 4" pockets on a pool table, it works on snooker tables, works on Chinese 8 Ball tables, works on coffee tables, works on my toy table on my desk.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with pocket size as to why CTE works.
The part in bold nails it. That is so true. But all I'm trying to point out, is to watch what you're doing. While you and I believe that leveraging (read: exploiting) the extra space in the pocket willfully is not slop, how many players will -- as is the usual case in pool, with the "magic pill" approach to learning -- jump on this, and not really grasp the concepts of CJ's 3-part pocket system?
We can say, it doesn't matter -- did the ball go in the hole? But that's what I'm trying to point out; that's a very slippery slope to be on. With the concept of pushing the margin of error to one side of the pocket, as long as you can guarantee that the lack of margin on error on the opposite side of the pocket isn't an issue (i.e. there's "never" a danger of hitting the ball too fat), this is great. But that's a loaded expectation, for obvious reasons.
-Sean
In the spirit of keeping current conversations intact, I don't want to derail this thread on the topic of CTE on snooker tables (and that's why I didn't mention it here in this thread). Maybe we want to start a new thread, either here, or in the Snooker forum?
-Sean
Aiming is the easiest aspect in cuesports. If you ask to a person who doesn't play where to hit the ob to make it in the pocket he will show precisely where to hit it. The problem with aiming is 90% of players have not perfect strokes, so they are actually aiming correctly but they are not hitting the cb where they want ( unwanted spin), this leads to deflection, swerve, throw. Because you think you are hitting centerball ( instead you are hitting left or right of the cb) you miss the ball because you are not compensating for all the consequences of english, that's why a lot of people use outside or inside all the time, because knowing they don't have perfect stroke, they prefer to compensate all the time for deflection, swerve and throw, instead of hitting with "I hope I get lucky and I hit the cb in the center" thought in mind.
As far as I know, snooker players don't use any special aiming system. They use ghost ball or the contact point in the ob. They are so good at aiming and potting because most of them have perfect fundamentals and they very rarely put unwanted spin on the cueball.
As far as I know, snooker players don't use any special aiming system. They use ghost ball or the contact point in the ob. They are so good at aiming and potting because most of them have perfect fundamentals and they very rarely put unwanted spin on the cueball.
No need. I just think you probably need to rethink statements about the accuracy of aiming systems being "hidden" by pocket size. Unless you are fairly adept at using various aiming systems and have tried them out on all manner of tables you might want to not go there.
I am adept and have had the opportunity to try them out on all manner of tables and pocket sizes. Which is why I make the statement of accuracy.
I don't even play snooker and I beat quite a few players in China with pivoting. In the one room I played, I beat everyone but what would be considered the "short stop" snooker players. The one guy I played, I had zero chance. I think playing a ton of 14.1 helped me w/ snooker - it's very similar. I think if I had a snooker table to practice on, I'd run a 50.
That's actually the spirit of what I was trying to say, perhaps stated a better way (by you, Slh).
While you'll come across the occasional "aiming" thread in the snooker forums, it's usually a very focused case -- of a particular player/student that's having problems -- and not more than that. The topic of "aiming" in snooker is, well, a non-starter.
Aiming is a big issue in pool only. Many times, it's a "cart before the horse" thing.
-Sean
Mike,
Correct, although I didn't show the squirt vector in the diagram - it varies with things like the mass of the shaft the radius of the tip etc......
With english, the squirt is an angle that remains constant for a particular hit on the CB that would take the CB away to the outside of the OB the farther the separation is - all the way down the table before swerve takes effect.
Doesn't the accelerating stroke delay swerve by causing the CB to slide over the cloth without grabbing the knap?
Thanks,
Be well.
Dave:
I think the difference is that you already have good fundamentals. You've at least explored that side of the house to identify known common issues, and have found what works for you. And you're a conscientious person, too -- you know that to be a well-rounded player, fundamentals is a crucial thing.
Also, like you say -- 14.1 is a great foundation for snooker, because, like snooker, "it's all in the patterns." You have that foundation, whereas the average snooker player doesn't, or is still learning those patterns, while at the same time, practicing how to cue properly.
-Sean
Yup, Steve Davis. I think there's a 15-part series out there. Back-of-ball aiming is built on fractional aiming combined with ghost ball (called "dummy ball" in the UK).
-Sean