Math Problem

[JoeyInCali]

I said long ago there are enough similarities in my shadow thing and cte I always thought that it could be used off a table. Lol john Barton posted a video once about aiming trashcans and stuff outside it was funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Aiming systems are useless if they don't tell you where the cue ball is going , imo.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Aiming systems are useless if they don't tell you where the cue ball is going , imo.

ROTFLMAO! Pure brilliance. Aiming systems help to pocket object balls at a higher percentage by MAKING the CB go where it needs to go on the OB.

The player MAKES the cue ball go where it has to go after the strike. It's called English, draw, follow, and speed.

 

[cookie man]

CTE uses specific visuals between the CB and OB, as determined by the user, based on a specific shot...in other words, based on the relationship between the cb, the ob, and the desired pocket. The visuals are between the cb and ob. These are specific visuals that do not include any rails or pockets. The visuals align your body to a specific view/perception of cb to ob relationship. The sweeps or pivots thin or thicken this relationship as needed to pocket the ball. The visuals aren't dependent upon or restricted by the location of rails or pockets, so there is absolutely no reason this couldn't be used on a square table, or a round table, or in a wide open field using cantaloupes or tomatoes.

And this is strictly your opinion. And it's not an expert opinion as you really have no working knowledge of CTE.
Keep on guessing and spreading bad info though.

 

[cookie man]

I said long ago there are enough similarities in my shadow thing and cte I always thought that it could be used off a table. Lol john Barton posted a video once about aiming trashcans and stuff outside it was funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You can start learning perceptions off the table, but that's about it.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Any aiming "system" still boils down to the imagination of the cue ball and object ball colliding. IF a player does not have any perception on how the two balls collide, I guess he can't aim a carom or billiard .
RFLMAO. LOL. LOL. LMAO.
Wait, let's add more LOL . More LOL.
It looks really mature and civil.
LOL

One aiming guru and ardent advocate of one aiming system made videos years ago how great this particular system is. Turns out he was not even using it the right way and he really had no grasp of the system then.
But, he was making balls on the old videos.
How was he making balls ?
Yup, imagining the two balls colliding and lining them up.
Whatever he was talking about doing was moot.
He could have said he was aiming the tip to the shadow of the edge of the rubber and would still have made balls .
ROFLMAO ! Pure genius! Wait more LOL!
English ? LOL LOL A friend was on the phone with an aiming guru. He asked him what to do if he needed English. The aiming guru said don't use it. Play like Ralph Souquet he said.
LOL LOL
Wait, let's add more LOL.

Sorry, these math thingy is pointless imo. I bet those pros would laugh about it .

 

[Dan White]

Sorry, these math thingy is pointless imo. I bet those pros would laugh about it .

This post was more about math than it was about pool. It just tied in to so much discussion about table dimensions and I thought people would find it interesting. Again, it was more about math than actual pool.

 

[JoeyInCali]

This post was more about math than it was about pool. It just tied in to so much discussion about table dimensions and I thought people would find it interesting. Again, it was more about math than actual pool.

Ok, fair enough.
Balls don't bank like reflected light .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4niYd9ccsQw
That video has helped me more in kicking and banking than anything I have heard or seen .

 

[Low500]

And this is strictly your opinion. And it's not an expert opinion as you really have no working knowledge of CTE.
Keep on guessing and spreading bad info though.

Hello CookieMan.
I saw your reply here and of course it also showed the original posting from one of those anti-CTE people (who I keep on ignore).
Having read it, I being a total advocate of the 0-15-30-45 CTE method of getting perceptions. can't help but wonder why it would not work on a table of any size? Even a round one....the perceptions would be the same would they not?
Just get the perception, get into shooting position based on that perception and fire away.
Believe me, I am in no way aligning myself with any of the anti-CTE crowd, but in my thinking a perception is a perception.....no matter what size table.
I will concede that in the case of banks or 2-3 rail kicks, the table dimensions would be a factor. Other than that, why wouldn't it work?
Your wise counsel will be appreciated.
:thumbup:

 

[BC21]

Deleted. Carry on.

 

[Low500]

It's "by numbers" guys and not with a calculator either.

0-15-30-45 degree perceptions in the CTE method of aiming pool shots requires no estimating about "I think that's thick enough or that's thin enough"...once the analysis of the perceptions is mastered. (all this is assuming the player has a straight stroke and is staying down on the shot with follow through of some type). The analysis of the perceptions in CTE does away with any ghost balls (that can't be seen), or any mosconi fractions that can't be seen either, only estimated.
I am not a professional instructor. I am not an amateur instructor. I'm not any kind of instructor and have zero desire to become one. I am merely a student who has seen very exciting results from utilizing the system as taught by Stan Shuffett.
I would compare the use of the CTE perceptions in a way to the illusions that can come about to a pilot when flying in adverse weather or at night when VFR just won't be high percentage.
Illusions can cause disorientation in pilots, when landing, especially at night or in low-visibility conditions. For almost all of these illusions, the fix is simple: Trust the instruments, maintain a stable approach speed and appropriate altitudes for the approach segments being flown, and be mentally prepared to recognize an illusion when it's occurring.
In pool shooting, there are optical illusions that can occur as well...due to fatigue, carelessness, fear, superstitions from the past, other emotions, etc. A CTE shooter might, during the preshot routine before getting his perceptions, momentarily swear that a shot is a routine 30 degree hit and then after the analysis he sees that it is actually a 15 degree hit. Many shots can present themselves in the form of an illusion before objective analysis
The decision the shooter makes at that moment will determine if he pockets the ball or overcuts it. Does he go with what he "feels" like it is or does he depend on fact?
He must, in this case...TRUST THE INSTRUMENTS. The 'instruments' in this case being the perception his eyes have given him based on proven principles that require no mumbo jumbo or believing in what the "old pro" at the pool room said.
To do otherwise is to invite doom or as Grady used to say is "a route fraught with peril".
Life goes on.
:thumbup:

 

[BC21]

0-15-30-45 degree perceptions in the CTE method of aiming pool shots requires no estimating about "I think that's thick enough or that's thin enough"...once the analysis of the perceptions is mastered. (all this is assuming the player has a straight stroke and is staying down on the shot with follow through of some type). The analysis of the perceptions in CTE does away with any ghost balls (that can't be seen), or any mosconi fractions that can't be seen either, only estimated.

.......

:thumbup:

Actually, the player must decide (based on their judgment or experience) which CTE perception to use. Then after getting the visuals for that perception the player must decide (based on their judgement or experience) whether the perception looks slightly too thick or too thin to pocket the ball. The perception itself, if you shoot straight through ccb from there, will never pocket the ball, at least that's what I've been told. So the shot will always be a little thinner or thicker than the perception, and based on this decision (whether the player thinks it looks thinner or thicker) the player does an inside or outside pivot/sweep to come into the final ccb. On most shots it's quite easy to tell whether it needs thinned or thickened.

The pivot/sweep is offset to the perception line (that initial fixed ccb line). The player must use (based on judgement and experience) what he thinks is a half-tip offset based on looks or feel or whatever. The player must use the correct bridge-v placement along the offset in order to sweep or pivot just right. But when all of this comes together just right, I have to admit, it works. It just takes practice to gain the experience needed to make it work consistently.

The same ob quarter reference points used in cte are used in traditional fractional aiming, also known as the 5 lines system. The player must decide (based on their judgement or experience) which quarter ref aim line matches closest to produce the needed shot angle. They visualize aiming straight through ccb along this aim line and then decide whether the shot looks thinner or thicker or just right for that particular aiming reference. Then they adjust that aim line (based on judgement or experience) to provide a thinner or thicker cut as needed. After enough practice one gains enough experience to make it work consistently.

There are some similarities between the two aiming methods.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Actually, the player must decide (based on their judgment or experience) which CTE perception to use. Then after getting the visuals for that perception the player must decide (based on their judgement or experience) whether the perception looks slightly too thick or too thin to pocket the ball. The perception itself, if you shoot straight through ccb from there, will never pocket the ball, at least that's what I've been told. So the shot will always be a little thinner or thicker than the perception, and based on this decision (whether the player thinks it looks thinner or thicker) the player does an inside or outside pivot/sweep to come into the final ccb. On most shots it's quite easy to tell whether it needs thinned or thickened.

The pivot/sweep is offset to the perception line (that initial fixed ccb line). The player must use (based on judgement and experience) what he thinks is a half-tip offset based on looks or feel or whatever. The player must use the correct bridge-v placement along the offset in order to sweep or pivot just right. But when all of this comes together just right, I have to admit, it works. It just takes practice to gain the experience needed to make it work consistently.

The same ob quarter reference points used in cte are used in traditional fractional aiming, also known as the 5 lines system. The player must decide (based on their judgement or experience) which quarter ref aim line matches closest to produce the needed shot angle. They visualize aiming straight through ccb along this aim line and then decide whether the shot looks thinner or thicker or just right for that particular aiming reference. Then they adjust that aim line (based on judgement or experience) to provide a thinner or thicker cut as needed. After enough practice one gains enough experience to make it work consistently.

There are some similarities between the two aiming methods.

How did a thread about a math problem involving whacko dimension pool tables which has nothing to do about anything in reality turn into you
once again acting like a certified CTE instructor pontificating all knowingly about CTE and comparing it to Poolology fractions?

I have Earth shattering news for you - IT'S NOT!

What you need to focus on IN A SEPARATE THREAD is more videos with you on the table explaining and demonstrating how to perform the fraction alignments and which to use in different zones and confine yourself TO THAT.

Do what Stan has done for FREE. What needs to be known about CTE is done by HIM in videos. It certainly doesn't need you involved. KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG AND PUT IT INTO WHERE YOU'RE THE CREATOR.

HERE THEY ARE ON YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUW8lTFYIYGN2AjHKN23M-RQ This isn't even all of them.

Dan White said this thread isn't about CTE. Well both you and he have once again turned it into one by bringing it up multiple times and you going into a full blown bullsh*t tutorial. I also see where you DELETED thread #49 where you called me out by name trying to bait me into a CTE battle of words. Somebody must have given you the word to get rid of it.

Don't tell me you were just answering someone's question. You didn't have to address anything but you just cannot for the life of you shut that mouth where it doesn't belong.

STICK TO POOLOLOGY!

STAN HAS IT DOWN PAT WITH CTE AND DOESN'T NEED OR WANT YOUR INPUT!

 

[BC21]

How did a thread about a math problem involving whacko dimension pool tables which has nothing to do about anything in reality turn into you
once again acting like a certified CTE instructor pontificating all knowingly about CTE and comparing it to Poolology fractions?

I have Earth shattering news for you - IT'S NOT!

What you need to focus on IN A SEPARATE THREAD is more videos with you on the table explaining and demonstrating how to perform the fraction alignments and which to use in different zones and confine yourself TO THAT.

Do what Stan has done for FREE. What needs to be known about CTE is done by HIM in videos. It certainly doesn't need you involved. KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG AND PUT IT INTO WHERE YOU'RE THE CREATOR.

HERE THEY ARE ON YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUW8lTFYIYGN2AjHKN23M-RQ This isn't even all of them.

Dan White said this thread isn't about CTE. Well both you and he have once again turned it into one by bringing it up multiple times and you going into a full blown bullsh*t tutorial.

Don't tell me you were just answering someone's question. You didn't have to address anything but you just cannot for the life of you shut that mouth where it doesn't belong.

STICK TO POOLOLOGY!

STAN HAS IT DOWN PAT WITH CTE AND DOESN'T NEED OR WANT YOUR INPUT!

I was comparing Stan's version of Hal's system to TRADITIONAL fractional aiming, NOT Poolology. Stan has a great 5 lines fractional lesson on YouTube, where he says it's his favorite system next to CTE. I agree he does a fine job teaching both. But for some reason you insist on doubting my understanding of CTE, despite my learning it from Stan's videos and piecing together parts from others here on AZ. I spent a few hours experimenting with it until I was able to see how it works, but I'm not going to invest countless more hours in order to develop a learned consistency for it. I prefer the one line aiming process, look where the cb must go and send it there.

And this hypothetical math thread took a hard turn toward CTE when cookie accused me of taking a pot shot at CTE when I said any perception or fractional hit would send the ball into a pocket if you could hit it hard enough. My comment was in ref to Dan saying probably neither cte nor Poolology could help solve the math problem. I simply pointed out that it's an unrealistic endeavor, and that ANY aiming method could pocket a ball multiple rails on any size/shape of table if you hit the ball at warp speed....you'd just never know exactly which pocket it would hit -- too many changing frictional variables involved to calculate as shown in the math problem. But Dan did say it was more about math than actual pool.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I was comparing Stan's version of Hal's system to TRADITIONAL fractional aiming, NOT Poolology.

Here we go again. THIS THREAD was NOT about CTE or HAL'S. Hal had OVER 20 systems, ALL WITH PIVOTS. You know NOTHING about what Hal taught or those systems. CTE has NOTHING in common with traditional fractional aiming. All you see is 15, 30, 45 and say it's fractional. They're references, that's IT. Poolology IS a traditional fractional aiming system. What you've done differently is construct a grid where balls may be laid to rest in actual play to help determine what fraction to use as long as it can be accurately seen or imagined by the player from CCB to the multiple fractions. Once outside the edge of the OB, it's a different story. How is my knowledge?

But you dragged it in here and still are referring to it.


Stan has a great 5 lines fractional lesson on YouTube, where he says it's his favorite system next to CTE. I agree he does a fine job teaching both.

He always does with everything.

But for some reason you insist on doubting my understanding of CTE, despite my learning it from Stan's videos and piecing together parts from others here on AZ.

What part of "CTE" doesn't need to be brought up in this thread or compared do you not understand? I don't care what you understand or THINK you understand about CTE. It doesn't need to be beat to death again with you interjecting it into the thread.

I spent a few hours experimenting with it until I was able to see how it works,

A few hours experimenting? WOW! IMPRESSIVE! ROTFLMAO

but I'm not going to invest countless more hours in order to develop a learned consistency for it. I prefer the one line aiming process, look where the cb must go and send it there.

Fine. But what part of you don't know enough or have a WORKING KNOWLEDGE of it under the gun that disqualifies you from continuously bringing it up as if you're an expert?

And this hypothetical math thread took a hard turn toward CTE when cookie accused me of taking a pot shot at CTE when I said any perception or fractional hit would send the ball into a pocket if you could hit it hard enough.

WRONG! CTE came up in the first post and then by YOU before Cookie came in.

I talked to Stan yesterday by email. And he said CTE will NOT work consistently for weirdly shaped tables that aren't 2:1. There's a key word up there. He even said he might cut a slab of wood that's shaped irregularly and prove that it won't.

What I find absolutely incredulous and hilarious is you're saying that it WILL work accurately on an irregularly shaped table but then attempt picking it apart on a 2:1 table with misconceptions and lack of system knowledge to say it's IMPOSSIBLE to make balls using the SAME VISUALS as taught and stated by Stan. IT CAN'T WORK.


My comment was in ref to Dan saying probably neither cte nor Poolology could help solve the math problem. I simply pointed out that it's an unrealistic endeavor, and that ANY aiming method could pocket a ball multiple rails on any size/shape of table if you hit the ball at warp speed....you'd just never know exactly which pocket it would hit -- too many changing frictional variables involved to calculate as shown the math problem

And that is the only part you said which makes sense.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The analysis of the perceptions in CTE does away with any ghost balls (that can't be seen), or any mosconi fractions that can't be seen either, only estimated.

Please describe what can be seen.

pj
chgo

 

[Low500]

It's by the numbers, guys...0-15-30-45

Please describe what can be seen.
pj
chgo

The following can be seen and are relevant to the CTE method of aiming....The cue ball, the object ball, the edge(s) of the cue ball, the edge(s) of the object ball, the cue tip.
(fractions and ghost balls cannot be seen...only guessed at.)
To take it any further will require study of the procedures. The procedures can be seen in various DVD productions and on the YouTube.
If a person doesn't know what to do from that point....then the person should reevaluate their thinking and blame themselves for failing.
And if after extensive continued work, the person still fails.....the person should abandon the CTE aiming, take the lazy way out and stick to "feel", "ghost balls", "fractions" and "see the shot".
That way the person can pontificate profusely regarding how to aim pool shots...(without knowing what he/she doesn't know).
That should cover it, I guess.
Life goes on.
:thumbup:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The following can be seen and are relevant to the CTE method of aiming....The cue ball, the object ball, the edge(s) of the cue ball, the edge(s) of the object ball, the cue tip.

CTE's "perceptions" can't be seen?

pj
chgo

 

[LAMas]

To start, assume that one can perceive the included angle between the line created by the center of the cue ball (CCB) to and through the COB and the other line created by the COB to the target (pocket), and ascribe an angle to it in degrees and or a mental picture (triangle) that can be remembered and recalled.

Then the aiming methods described in this thread can be effected. The cut angle of the shot can/will be affected by cut induced throw (CTE) and that result may be recalled or modified by applying different amounts of english - usually outside english (OE).

 

[Low500]

CTE's "perceptions" can't be seen?
pj
chgo

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a beginner at shooting pool. (I'm not any kind of "instructor" so my communication errors should be overlooked)
Of course the CTE perceptions can be seen...very clearly. Stan Shuffett's YouTube videos will help you a lot.
The other things I mentioned in the previous post (that can be seen), allow arriving at those perceptions in a precise and accurate manner. Without having to depend on ghost balls and old fashioned fractional stuff.
I trust your game improves and you can start running out the table with some regularity. Your opponents are going to hate you.
Good wishes.
:thumbup:
.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CTE's "perceptions" can't be seen?

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a beginner at shooting pool.

That didn't take long. Thanks for the usual insights.

pj
chgo