Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems

The pivot length does not matter as much as one would assume. I am confident that the process is geometrically sound and while there is probably a more effective range of pivot lengths, it's the process that is transmitted to the ghost ball that produces a consistent result. I wish I knew how to post the illustration, but cannot get my scanned picture to transfer into a post.

I'm also not going to argue about this as I am just responding to the question originally posted.

I was driven to figure out why these aim and pivot systems worked and responded with my results.

I'm not selling anything nor am I trying to carry out any crusades.
 
Reply to Thread

jsp said:
Well said.

I contend that it's practically impossible to develop an EXACT aiming system that doesn't include the contact point of the OB in one way or another.
Click to expand...

Lets say for an instant that cte is exact.

Well it all measured points off of the object ball right?

The protocol you chose these 6 different ones you choose them based on the lay of the pocket to the ball right?

So what does the ball know about the pocket?

Nothing so you are basing everything you do on judgement to arrive at a fairly generic contact point that takes into account the width of the pocket, is found by going off the object ball and has not a thing to do with the pocket.

What the pocket got to do with it? Got to Do with it?

Everything especially when you consider you have put a 2 and a 1/4 inch wide object in it and not a contact point.

Your feel is being dicatated by a non visual system which on another thread here its been established that visuals play a part in the system for angles in between the 6.

Geometric exactness is something that doesnt exist of on a shot when you have to throw one in with English to get your ball somewhere else to do it again.

Its just the system gives one a way of making balls.

All the ball making in the world is subject to getting shape, getting out and leaving yourself the easiest shots.

That is why my friend is robbing another one of my friends who plays with cte on a regular basis.

You have to be able to attain feel at some point. Your reference system has to readily allow you to do that or youre in deep doo plain and simple.

If you get there to the right place to make the shot.

Are you tuned in thick or thin? How do you get to the next ball with English to get you there?

336robin :thumbup:

aimisthegameinpool@yahoo.com
 
richard s said:
The pivot length does not matter as much as one would assume.
Click to expand...
Then you're having a difficult time visualizing basic geometry. You don't think pivoting at 24'' from the cue tip will result in a different aim line compared to pivoting at 2'' from the cue tip (given the same same pre-pivot cue line and CB placement)? Simply draw it out if you still have doubts.
 
You answered your own question

You answered your own question. Draw it out yourself and you'll be quite surprised by the result. Oh, there might be extremes that effect workability, but the process seems to hold up with different pivot lengths. I just tried it out on my home table.

I'm still trying to figure out how to post my scan. What holds the process together is starting out at the contact point and pivoting to CENTER.
 
In the end ALL these aiming systems or methods use a contact point, or line, or an image (ghost ball). A good percentage of shots in a real game need to be hit with spin, hard or soft, and also you have table conditions. Most tables are different in some way. Balls, cloth, rails, humidity, and some of the things are different from day to day and some hour to hour. I don’t care what method you use, you have to adjust a lot of shots away from the point of aim to make them or get position.

I have bought about a half dozen of these systems over the years and read up on others. I gave most of them a fair test. Most all of them work for natural shots, but the rest of the shots need to be adjusted by feel and from shooting that shot 1000’s of times. Johnnyt
 
richard s:
The pivot length does not matter as much as one would assume.
Click to expand...
So much for the credibility of your "proof". The effect of different pivot lengths has been examined and posted here. It matters.

pj
chgo
 
mantis99:
If someone can't place the edge of the tip on the center of the cb, then pivot the tip to the center of the cb with reasonable repeatability...
Click to expand...
Then they're not using the same pivot length each time.

Here's one for you:

If someone doesn't understand that "pivot to center ball" can create an infinite number of aim lines unless a pivot length is specified, then they don't understand the most basic thing about pivoting.

pj
chgo
 
Reply

Neil said:
Another great job of showing that you know nothing about CTE. Nice red herrings you threw in there about position play too! Of course, we are all too stupid to realize that they are two different things.:wink:
Click to expand...

Neill,
I understand the basics of what is happening on shots. The point I am making is this?

Do you or do you not make visual adjustments after you accomplish the protocol in cte when applying English?

336robin :thumbup:
 
Neil said:
As has been stated many, many, times, CTE is a way of establishing the no-english line to the center of the pocket. Any english or off-center hit from center requires a small adjustment, just like ANY other system or way of aiming out there.
Click to expand...

Thanks Neill coming from you that means something to me as Im a non cter. I just wanted to make sure that what I thought was right in my understanding of things.

CTE is a reference system for you guys.

Since Ive not gotten into the cte thing I just want to understand the basics of how you guys use it. I do my own thing. Not really trying to knock yours one of these days I will get around to trying to understand it better. Seems JoeyA is knocking them off pretty good using it part time. Im impressed his record is undeniable.

336robin :thumbup:

aimisthegameinpool
 
Let's say I developed a fractional aiming system that is comprised of only 3 hits: a full ball hit, a half ball hit, and a quarter ball hit. I claim that every conceivable shot in pool can be pocketed using ONLY these 3 hits. Feel or any subconscious adjustments are absolutely unnecessary, because I claim it's an EXACT system. Would you believe me?

If not, then let's say I increased the number of hits to 6 hits. Would you believe me then?

If not, then what about 12 hits? What about 25 hits? What about 50 hits? At what point (if ever) would you believe my claim that my fractional aiming system is "exact"?
 
The pivot def matters. The larger the pivot, the more it matters in order to hit the correct vector through the core (correct "center").

The pivot must always be executed from the tip-back, not the bridge-forward. This is figured from the edge of the shot circle (OB edge of circle, bridge at center--- you must pivot along that arc, which many times forces an effective pivot point behind the bridge).

Then you have perspective adjustments--- the OB gradually getting smaller than the CB with greater distance. When the OB/CB are close, your eyes must move MORE than when the OB/CB are far away (on the same alignment).

None of the above is every really though-out well in these threads.

I believe with a laser pointer, I can show a tolerance that's VERY small with no adjustment (one movement to the final position). This system is very math-based.

The guy who I had helping me got busy with other things. If guys like Dr. Dave / PJ really wanted to know the math--- we'd figure it out together. I have diagrams showing the pivot point offsets in 2D, but I believe they calibrate as the OB size decreases--- that's where I left off.

When I say "I believe it's exact" -- that's based on the info I have and the amount of adjustment needed when I play. I'll continue to say that because I'm confident that with the proper math-help, it'll be proven out in time. I'd rather be unpopular and right (for now) than in the "cool aiming police" group and flat wrong.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
The pivot def matters. The larger the pivot, the more it matters in order to hit the correct vector through the core (correct "center").

The pivot must always be executed from the tip-back, not the bridge-forward. This is figured from the edge of the shot circle (OB edge of circle, bridge at center--- you must pivot along that arc, which many times forces an effective pivot point behind the bridge).

Then you have perspective adjustments--- the OB gradually getting smaller than the CB with greater distance. When the OB/CB are close, your eyes must move MORE than when the OB/CB are far away (on the same alignment).

None of the above is every really though-out well in these threads.

I believe with a laser pointer, I can show a tolerance that's VERY small with no adjustment (one movement to the final position). This system is very math-based.

The guy who I had helping me got busy with other things. If guys like Dr. Dave / PJ really wanted to know the math--- we'd figure it out together. I have diagrams showing the pivot point offsets in 2D, but I believe they calibrate as the OB size decreases--- that's where I left off.

When I say "I believe it's exact" -- that's based on the info I have and the amount of adjustment needed when I play. I'll continue to say that because I'm confident that with the proper math-help, it'll be proven out in time. I'd rather be unpopular and right (for now) than in the "cool aiming police" group and flat wrong.
Click to expand...

The issue here is not about whether its mathematically correct or not. The issue is that proponents of CTE such as yourself claim that it is mathematically correct without first backing up your claims with actual math. To make a claim in science you need proof, until then you are wrong. If you do end up proving CTE to be mathematically correct, opponents of CTE were not wrong for asking you for proof to back up your claims.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Let's get started. Show your math.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I meant in person. Comment on my other points? Why is the offset greater for short shots vs long shots (same alignment) if this is all 2D math as you say. Help me understand. I think we should all meet in person so the cockiness isn't part of the conversation.

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk
 
richard s said:
A GEOMETRIC PROOF
Aim at the object ball contact point from an offset position on the cue ball in the direction of the cut.

Pivot the cue to the center of the cue ball for a center ball hit.

These two steps move an inscribed angle inside the ghost ball which forms a right triangle with the 90 degree angle at the contact point.
.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, this describes one of my preferred methods.

And to answer ensuing questions (from my point of view only):

- the amount of offset is determined by the amount of cut. I only break it down to 2 or 3 offsets (thick, thin, and really thin), which works jibes with any Houle system (but only looked at in a different way)

- the amount of pivot does matter, but I will echo what richard s said in that it doesn't seem to matter as much as geometry-minded people might think. Taken to the extreme (2" pivot vs. 40" pivot), there is surely a difference. But, within the standard pivot lengths, there isn't much of a difference as far as the balls and pockets are concerned. In other words, I don't seem to concern myself too much with pivot lengths.

Fred <~~~ IMO
 
Masayoshi said:
The issue here is not about whether its mathematically correct or not. The issue is that proponents of CTE such as yourself claim that it is mathematically correct without first backing up your claims with actual math.
Click to expand...
Actually, both are issues. The latter is something the proponents definitely have not done yet. The former is something the opponents think is not possible (given the established pivots systems out there).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top