Without doing all the math, I don't understand where you come up with only six angles. Pick a spot for the cb and ob. There is one angle. Now, move the cb over 1/16" to either the right or left. You now have another angle. This new angle will have a different CTE line by a little bit, and a different A.B,or C line by a little bit. I don't believe you are taking that into account.
Yes, that's true, AtLarge. But even though they appear to be converging in the forward direction (on the eye's image), they're still converging (in the absolute sense) in the rearward direction in the case of edge to A (left cut) or edge to C (right cut), and are parallel with edge to B. With edge to A or C, I don't believe I've read anything yet that pins down how the cue is to be aligned in relation to them and the CTEL. As we've long grown accustomed to, such ambiguities are the life-blood of these methods, allowing traditional aiming adjustments to sneak in through the back door.Jim, if the CB and OB are far apart, the OB appears significantly smaller than the CB. In that case, the CTEL and the secondary aim line appear to converge in the distance (not at the player's eyes) regardless of whether the A/C or B point is being used.
You have proved nothing! do you not understand that? show the math to the system or dont talk about it!
I went to the pool hall and tried out the tilting of the head. ... Just saying.
What you're "Just saying" makes me wonder about the efficacy of sighting the CTE visuals for people with a straight-on snooker alignment.
LOL! You say opinions don't matter, yet you really mean only the opinions of the naysayers matter! The only proof you have that it isn't exact is from those that don't even understand how to use it! How can their math possibly be right??? Oh yeah, it can't, but that doesn't matter.:banghead:
It seems like all these threads play out the same way.
Naysayers = Math
Yaysayers = Non Math
The Naysayers all seem to say that the Yaysayers don't understand the math...therefore can not explain why it does or does not work......The Yaysayers all seem to say that the Naysayers don't understand the system....therefore can not explain (through math) why it does not work.
However...I find it hard to believe that not one of the Yaysayers understands math.....I also find it just as hard to believe that not one of the Naysayers understands the system.
On top of that...I feel like I get the vibe that the Naysayers are trying to confuse the Yaysayers with an incredible amount of math......and the Yaysayers are trying to confuse the Naysayers with an incredible increasing amount of jargon and seemingly more and more "method" being added
what really surprises me with the Masters event going on is that the Yaysayers have not come forward and said "hey look at Stevie Moor's shot making % compared to the other top pros" ......and the Naysayser have not come forward and said "hey look at Stevie Moor's shot making % compared to the other top pros"...
Show the math to the system, anyone? help me understand it oktheres a piece to the puzzle missing and nobody knows what it is!
Show the math to the system, anyone? help me understand it oktheres a piece to the puzzle missing and nobody knows what it is!
You could do it that way, but it's not what you'd do in practice. The robot knows exactly where the object ball, cue ball, and center of the pocket opening all are. Thus, it's trivial to calculate the point over which the cue ball must be driven to pocket the object ball (essentially, calculate the ghost ball position). This is much easiest way to do it and probably the fastest.This is what (look up table) can be programmed into a computer processor to solve the shot. The human brain is capable of this.
I think, what jsp has successfully shown with this thread is, that advocates of pivot systems really don't care whether it's exact or not. They just tell themselves that it is. And in case anybody gives a counterexample and shows that you can do all the steps accurately and still come up with the wrong angle, then there is obviously this nonexistent referenceline that hasn't been considered in the calculation. But that line cannot be shown on paper, it's only in your head.
It's so frustratingly stupid. To all yaysayers, if you want to contribute to this thread: It's not just about CTE, it's about all pivot systems. Please present any pivot system and its method including clear steps that are supposed to lead you to the exact line of aim that will send the ob into the center of the pocket. Then I'm sure some naysayer will be happy to give an example.
There is know system that can produce(the correct line of aim for the player) the exact line of aim .If you took away the margin of error away from the pocket and made the pocket just big enough for the ball to fit through. And then you took a gb aim trainer , place it behind the ball so you could see the actual ghost ball(this is the exact line of aim)now we shoot through the gb with the different type of hits ,hard, soft ,right ,left,high and low,or what ever we would hardly ever pocket a ball if we
didnt make any adjustments.(good thing for margin of error and rails)
Guess work will always be involved when it comes to pocketing
balls.The only shot in pool that has exactness would be a straight in
one.
I could be wrong about these things, but that's the way i feel.
What I am saying isn't parsimonious.
After my trial with CTE tonight, I finished by reverting to my double distance/GB aiming and ran a few racks of 9 Ball.
Just being academic.:wink::thumbup:
Thanks.
What I am saying isn't parsimonious.
After my trial with CTE tonight, I finished by reverting to my double distance/GB aiming and ran a few racks of 9 Ball.
Just being academic.:wink::thumbup:
Thanks.
Lamas,
I respect academics who don't attempt to ridicule non-academics. You seem to be an exception and make no attempts to put look down your nose at other people.
I'm curious. You apparently play nine ball rather well. Are you able to use CTE/Pro One at a similar level? If not, how much worse or how much better do you play with CTE/Pro One? (just making a funny about the "better")
Thanks,
JoeyA
LAMas,
Again, for clarity, when you say tilting your head, are your eyes on the same level with your left eye forward? Or is one eye above the other? By the sideways alignment, I was proposing that you turn your head and still keep your eyes level. It will close the distance between your eyes. This alignment works better for B or thinner cuts.
I start out by aligning my eyes to the Cte line and shifting my eyes to the reference point. I will shift my head slightly back and forth until my eyes pick up the second point. You can be somewhat square to the shot. It doesn't matter. It shouldn't be an extreme change to what you did previously before Cte. It will be a slight adjustment as you look at the object ball.
Everyone has an individual setup. Do what's comfortable and mechanically correct for you. Your body should fall into place naturally with accurate visuals. I turn sideways on some alignments and am more squared up on others. It varies with each shot. You can reverse engineer your Cte system and reverse pivot to see where your visuals start out at. Compare the starting alignment with with your present aiming system and you may gain some insight as to your visual and physical set up that is natural for you.
I set up a known angle and reverse Cte to see if I am setting up correctly with my pivot, bridge placement and visuals. When I teach a baseball swing, I use reverse engineering to show how you get there.
Best,
Mike