Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems

SpiderWebComm said:
Jim:

This is excellent. Nice work. The cue is never offset parallel to the CTEL, even on an edge to B alignment if there is some distance between the CB and OB. Your eyes would come off the CTEL at different distances based on the same offset at different shot distances (that's what I was trying to get at earlier). I hope that makes sense.

Dave

P.S. As the distance changes, the cue's angle into the CTEL changes due to perspective. Figuring the cue to be parallel to the CTEL on all shots and distances / alignments wouldn't be right. If we can figure OB size changes (with perspective) and how that affects visual offsets from the CTEL (so we know the cue's alignment to the CTEL), we'll be able to figure a more definitive graph. This data is really interesting to me.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dave.

If you will, I have some questions. First let me define a couple of terms for the sake of clarity (hopefully). I'll call two lines simply "parallel" if out there in the real world, they are parallel; for instance, the noses of the cushions on opposite sides of the table. And I'll call two lines which are not parallel in the real world, but which appear parallel to our eye because of perspective, "apparently parallel." In other words, if an optometrist were to look at the image formed on our retina (assume a flat retina), those lines would be parallel on that image.

With that in mind, can you verify, clarify, correct or indicate any agreement or disagreement with the following statements. Assume a left cut.

- After adjusting your eyes to acquire the line going from CB edge to A or B on the object ball, your left eye is in the vertical plane containing that line. In other words, your eye would be right above that line if you extended it backwards.

- The CB edge to B line is parallel to the CTE line, but apparently non-parallel when viewed from the shooter's perspective.

Both of the following statements can't be true, maybe neither are.

- When moving into your setup, using either edge to A or edge to B, you attempt to align the cue parallel to the edge to A line, or edge to B line, as the case may be.

- When moving into your setup, using either edge to A or edge to B, you attempt to align the cue so that it's apparently parallel to the edge to A line, or edge to B line, as the case may be.

- According to AtLarge's interpretation above, the first of the above two statements is the correct one.

I'd really appreciate some feedback if you would.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Jal said:
I think you might be referring to this one (post #40) in the thread on Patrick's review of the DVD?

As to your interpretation, it's also not quite clear (to me) what using the convergent point means.
Jim
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the post to which I was referring. As for the rest... Please accept my apologies. I thought I'd found a way to make use of the fact that the CTE and ETC lines can appear to converge in the visual field even though they are actually parallel in the plane. The idea was fuzzy at the time, and gets fuzzier the more I think about it.

Jim: Saw your 03:09 post #124 immediately after submitting this one. That contains the general idea I was trying to grasp. Thanks for throwing some light in that direction.
 
Last edited:
Masayoshi said:
Dr. Dave has disproven it. Basically, with one set bridge length, there are 6 discrete points of aim in Stan's version of CTE. 6 points of aim are insufficient to pot many shots.

The shots in between these points of aim must be corrected by (either conciously or unconciosly) adjusting where you pivot the cue. The bridge length must be adjusted by feel and intuition. Therefore CTE is not exact.


The CTE'ers say "not so fast" because they seem to believe that not being exact is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Stan covers bridge length adjustments in the DVD!
 
mantis99 said:
Masayoshi said:
Dr. Dave has disproven it. Basically, with one set bridge length, there are 6 discrete points of aim in Stan's version of CTE. 6 points of aim are insufficient to pot many shots.

The shots in between these points of aim must be corrected by (either conciously or unconciosly) adjusting where you pivot the cue. The bridge length must be adjusted by feel and intuition. Therefore CTE is not exact.

The CTE'ers say "not so fast" because they seem to believe that not being exact is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Stan covers bridge length adjustments in the DVD!
Click to expand...
Stan suggests a precise bridge length for each CB-OB distance. He also clearly defines 6 and only six different lines of aim for each CB-OB distance. All of this is clearly summarized here:

Regardless of where you position your eyes and how you perceive things at the table in 3D, there are still only 6 different lines of aim for a given CB and OB placements (at a certain distance apart). These 6 different lines of aim create six different cut angles. Depending on where the pocket is relative to the OB, one of the 6 angles might pocket the ball. The chances for success are better if the OB is closer to the pocket and if the pocket is large. However, 6 cut angles is not sufficient to cover the wide range of shots that occur at a table, especially a full-size table with tight pockets. For more information, see:

The proof that 6 lines of aim is insufficient is irrefutable. Regardless, align-and-pivot "aiming systems" like CTE and 90/90 can still have potential benefits for some people. Many of these benefits are summarized here:

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
The proof that 6 lines of aim is insufficient is irrefutable.
Click to expand...
Still irrefutable after all these years.

We've been saying this for more than a decade, beginning with Hal Houle's "3-angle" system back on RSB - in fact, CTE is Hal Houle's 3-angle system with pivots added to make it a 6-angle system (Stan pretty much says so on his DVD, but it's obvious anyway). Nothing much has changed, including the people who still don't get how it works.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
We've been saying this for more than a decade, beginning with Hal Houle's "3-angle" system back on RSB - in fact, CTE is Hal Houle's 3-angle system with pivots added to make it a 6-angle system (Stan pretty much says so on his DVD, but it's obvious anyway). Nothing much has changed, including the people who still don't get how it works.
Click to expand...
The system can work for all shots if you vary your "effective pivot length" as described and illustrated on my CTE resource page, but Stan's version of CTE seems to be recommending a fixed-bridge pivot, where the "effective pivot length" is simply the bridge length. For a given CB and OB placement at a given distance apart, Stan clearly specifies a single bridge length and a fixed-bridge pivot. With only 6 different line of aim, only 6 cut angles are possible with a pivot at a given bridge length.

Regards,
Dave
 
JoeyA said:
What is still irrefutable is that more and more people are improving their pool game by using CTE/Pro One.
Click to expand...
Joey,

This might be true. There is certainly no reason to doubt this claim. Align-and-pivot systems do offer benefits to some people. Also, anytime somebody practices and focuses on their pre-shot routine and aiming (regardless of what "system" they use, if any), their game will usually improve.

Regards,
Dave
 
Spidey:
Arcing the pivot along the "shot circle" (even for small pivots) will ensure you're hitting the correct center.
Click to expand...
And the meaningless phrase "arc the pivot along the 'shot circle'" ensures that you can define the pivot as whatever your "experience" deems necessary to make the shot.

pj
chgo
 
Dave:
The system can work for all shots if you vary your "effective pivot length"
Click to expand...
I think this can be misleading if not clarified:

The system leads you to an approximate aim that must be "finished" by either:

1. Pivoting "mechanically" after selecting the necessary pivot length from a long list of pivot lengths that you've either memorized or refer to while playing.

or

2. Adjusting your aim ("pivoting") by feel.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
dr_dave said:
The system can work for all shots if you vary your "effective pivot length" as described and illustrated on my CTE resource page, but Stan's version of CTE seems to be recommending a fixed-bridge pivot, where the "effective pivot length" is simply the bridge length. For a given CB and OB placement at a given distance apart, Stan clearly specifies a single bridge length and a fixed-bridge pivot. With only 6 different line of aim, only 6 cut angles are possible with a pivot at a given bridge length.
Click to expand...
I think this can be misleading if not clarified:

The system leads you to an approximate aim that must be "finished" by either:

1. Pivoting "mechanically" after selecting the necessary pivot length from a long list of pivot lengths that you've either memorized or refer to while playing.

or

2. Adjusting your aim ("pivoting") by feel.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a reasonable clarification to me.

Although, quite a few shots can be made with a fixed-bridge pivot, especially if the shots are at angles close to one of the cut angles provided by one of the 6 lines of aim (assuming you pick the right one) and/or if the OB is close to a pocket and/or if the pocket is not very "tight."

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
Joey,

This might be true. There is certainly no reason to doubt this claim. Align-and-pivot systems do offer benefits to some people. Also, anytime somebody practices and focuses on their pre-shot routine and aiming (regardless of what "system" they use, if any), their game will usually improve.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,
I also read on your website where Colin Colenso wrote:
"Using these systems may represent the most organized approach they have attempted for aiming."

This too is a powerful statement that would seemingly encourage people who want to improve their game to utilize CTE/Pro One.

If Colin's information is to be accepted as Gospel then I am unable to appreciate the little snide remarks that come up from time to time about CTE/Pro One and the people who use aiming systems.

I think the NAYSAYERS still have a ways to go before they are fully muzzled about the negativity that they attempt to associate with aiming systems.

I notice that in some of his posts, even Patrick has been reduced to grudgingly giving some attaboys to CTE/Pro One. :D Perhaps if he becomes proficient in its use, he will want to apply for his tin foil hat.

From all of the naysayers, I hear a lot less negativity as more and more people come on board. There is more work to be done.

In the meantime, I think the naysayers would improve their standing with the pool-playing community by praising the value of CTE/Pro One rather than trying to put it down. Who knows, giving the proper amount of credit due to CTE/Pro One might even provide some credibility to the naysayers other points of view.


JoeyA (not going to hold my breath) :D
 
Palmerfan
Registered User Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NYC
vCash: 500
iTrader: (0)
Posts: 6


Pivot System

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just had my first 90/90 lesson which is a variation on CTE but a pivot based system..after the lesson I spent 3 hrs at the table hitting different cut shots with the system and since it was my first day using the system there were plenty of misses..but the misses were the exact same (hitting thick)..after making an adjustment I was pocketing balls form all over..it simply works for me and I'm not a teacher or coach so I cant explain why it works..but when I have my sightline right and that small pivot moving the tip to the center of the cue ball..I feel like I cant miss. And to make sure, I was hitting balls hard to make sure they went in clean as they did..had a few rattle but most went clean at the end.

It works for me so I'm sticking to it. Helps that Ron V was coaching me and saw my mistakes and corrected them no doubt, but I believe in the system, I saw it improve my pocketing

From Mikjary-

Ron is a good guy and welcome to the forums.

Best,
Mike





Palmerfan said:
Thanks Mike,

Nate
Click to expand...


Nate:

Welcome aboard.

Your RonV post may get lost in this CTE discussion-but many appreciate RonV's closely related aiming system.

And Mike-is one of the calmer, informed, proponents of both. A good guy, generous with his offers of assistance.

Take care

Enjoy the ride
 
JoeyA said:
What is still irrefutable is that more and more people are improving their pool game by using CTE/Pro One.
Click to expand...
You're in the wrong thread JoeyA. Your statement, true or not, is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
 
JoeyA said:
I think the naysayers would improve their standing with the pool-playing community by praising the value of CTE/Pro One rather than trying to put it down. Who knows, giving the proper amount of credit due to CTE/Pro One might even provide some credibility to the naysayers other points of view.
Click to expand...
Joey,

First of all, I'm not that concerned with my "standing with the pool-playing community." I'm more concerned with truth and meaningful understanding, even if my approach sometimes offends some people in "the pool-playing community." BTW, I do consider myself to be part of the "pool-playing community."

You might consider me to be a "naysayer," but I'm sure others (including me) don't see it that way. Now, I do sometimes mock and ridicule some of the ridiculous claims we have heard about "aiming systems" over these many years (for examples, see the into paragraph of my DAM aiming system), but I don't feel a need to apologize for this. Part of discovering the truth is exposing inappropriate marketing claims and untruths that make the "pool-playing community" look bad at times, IMO.

I have always tried to see the positives offered by aiming systems like CTE. That's why I've always maintained the list of benefits here:

Many of us, including Colin Colenso, Mike Page, Patrick Johnson, you, and I have contributed to this list over the years.

I have also worked hard to identify the realistic limitations of align-and-pivot systems. Many of these limitations are clearly described and illustrated on my CTE resource page.

I think it is important for people to understand both the positives and realistic limitations of systems. IMO, this can help people use the systems more effectively.

Regards,
Dave
 
JoeyA:
I think the naysayers would improve their standing with the pool-playing community by praising the value of CTE/Pro One rather than trying to put it down.
Click to expand...
I think you'd improve your credibility with everybody but CTE users by having any balance at all in your posts about it - rather than being the walking, talking advertisement for it that you've been. I fast forward over most of your CTE posts because I know they'll be nothing but more substanceless CTE cheerleading and "naysayer" bashing (with big-blue-font emphasis).

pj <- long as we're being all frank and stuff
chgo
 
Spider, You Have Not Answered This

Today, 01:09 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm
Jim:

This is excellent. Nice work. The cue is never offset parallel to the CTEL, even on an edge to B alignment if there is some distance between the CB and OB. Your eyes would come off the CTEL at different distances based on the same offset at different shot distances (that's what I was trying to get at earlier). I hope that makes sense.

Dave

P.S. As the distance changes, the cue's angle into the CTEL changes due to perspective. Figuring the cue to be parallel to the CTEL on all shots and distances / alignments wouldn't be right. If we can figure OB size changes (with perspective) and how that affects visual offsets from the CTEL (so we know the cue's alignment to the CTEL), we'll be able to figure a more definitive graph. This data is really interesting to me.

Thanks Dave.

If you will, I have some questions. First let me define a couple of terms for the sake of clarity (hopefully). I'll call two lines simply "parallel" if out there in the real world, they are parallel; for instance, the noses of the cushions on opposite sides of the table. And I'll call two lines which are not parallel in the real world, but which appear parallel to our eye because of perspective, "apparently parallel." In other words, if an optometrist were to look at the image formed on our retina (assume a flat retina), those lines would be parallel on that image.

With that in mind, can you verify, clarify, correct or indicate any agreement or disagreement with the following statements. Assume a left cut.

- After adjusting your eyes to acquire the line going from CB edge to A or B on the object ball, your left eye is in the vertical plane containing that line. In other words, your eye would be right above that line if you extended it backwards.

- The CB edge to B line is parallel to the CTE line, but apparently non-parallel when viewed from the shooter's perspective.

Both of the following statements can't be true, maybe neither are.

- When moving into your setup, using either edge to A or edge to B, you attempt to align the cue parallel to the edge to A line, or edge to B line, as the case may be.

- When moving into your setup, using either edge to A or edge to B, you attempt to align the cue so that it's apparently parallel to the edge to A line, or edge to B line, as the case may be.

- According to AtLarge's interpretation above, the first of the above two statements is the correct one.

I'd really appreciate some feedback if you would.

Jim
 
shankster8 said:
Today, 01:09 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm
Jim:

This is excellent. Nice work. The cue is never offset parallel to the CTEL, even on an edge to B alignment if there is some distance between the CB and OB. Your eyes would come off the CTEL at different distances based on the same offset at different shot distances (that's what I was trying to get at earlier). I hope that makes sense.

Dave

P.S. As the distance changes, the cue's angle into the CTEL changes due to perspective. Figuring the cue to be parallel to the CTEL on all shots and distances / alignments wouldn't be right. If we can figure OB size changes (with perspective) and how that affects visual offsets from the CTEL (so we know the cue's alignment to the CTEL), we'll be able to figure a more definitive graph. This data is really interesting to me.

Thanks Dave.

If you will, I have some questions. First let me define a couple of terms for the sake of clarity (hopefully). I'll call two lines simply "parallel" if out there in the real world, they are parallel; for instance, the noses of the cushions on opposite sides of the table. And I'll call two lines which are not parallel in the real world, but which appear parallel to our eye because of perspective, "apparently parallel." In other words, if an optometrist were to look at the image formed on our retina (assume a flat retina), those lines would be parallel on that image.

With that in mind, can you verify, clarify, correct or indicate any agreement or disagreement with the following statements. Assume a left cut.

- After adjusting your eyes to acquire the line going from CB edge to A or B on the object ball, your left eye is in the vertical plane containing that line. In other words, your eye would be right above that line if you extended it backwards.

- The CB edge to B line is parallel to the CTE line, but apparently non-parallel when viewed from the shooter's perspective.

Both of the following statements can't be true, maybe neither are.

- When moving into your setup, using either edge to A or edge to B, you attempt to align the cue parallel to the edge to A line, or edge to B line, as the case may be.

- When moving into your setup, using either edge to A or edge to B, you attempt to align the cue so that it's apparently parallel to the edge to A line, or edge to B line, as the case may be.

- According to AtLarge's interpretation above, the first of the above two statements is the correct one.

I'd really appreciate some feedback if you would.

Jim
Click to expand...

I plan to. I just got back from a 4-day medical conference. Once I catch up on my real-life work.... I'll get around to addressing these bullets. I think the post you quoted above is really important and I plan to get to it--- Unfortunately, I'm "behind the 8ball" on a deadline.

Dave
 
Jal said:
... Both of the following statements can't be true, maybe neither are.

- When moving into your setup, using either edge to A or edge to B, you attempt to align the cue parallel to the edge to A line, or edge to B line, as the case may be.

- When moving into your setup, using either edge to A or edge to B, you attempt to align the cue so that it's apparently parallel to the edge to A line, or edge to B line, as the case may be.

- According to AtLarge's interpretation above, the first of the above two statements is the correct one. ...
Click to expand...

Jim -- What I said in post #121 was my take on what Spidey said a few posts before that. But my interpretation of what Stan said in the DVD is really a bit different. When I commented on Dr. Dave's review of the DVD, here's what I wrote (11 days ago):
The way I interpret what Stan says is that, essentially, one needs to find the sighting position where he can simultaneously view both the CTEL and the secondary alignment line (to A/B/C). This sighting position will be between those two alignment lines, and this sighting position will define the relevant edges of the cue ball and, therefore, the relevant face (now think of it as a flat disk) of the cue ball. From this sighting position, move straight in toward that cue-ball face (perpendicular to the flat disk) with the 1/2-tip offset needed.​

So I felt Stan was saying you're not looking straight down either the CTEL or the edge-to-A/B/C line -- you're between those lines, sort of optimizing the view of both, rather than directly on either one. After all, if you are to look straight down either one of those lines, there is no need for the other one (other than some consistency of set-up reason, perhaps).
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I think you'd improve your credibility with everybody but CTE users by having any balance at all in your posts about it - rather than being the walking, talking advertisement for it that you've been. I fast forward over most of your CTE posts because I know they'll be nothing but more substanceless CTE cheerleading and "naysayer" bashing (with big-blue-font emphasis).

pj <- long as we're being all frank and stuff
chgo
Click to expand...

pATRICK, I'm more interested in balancing your degradation of CTE/Pro One and the users of aiming systems in general.

Maybe, when you start treating fellow posters with respect, regardless of your own personal beliefs, you might see me consider reducing the number of posts with big-blue-fonts.

As to your glossing over of my posts, I guess I should say thanks. Who wants to hear those snide remarks anyway?

JoeyA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top