Mike,
Thanks for your help.
As a lazy engineer, I look for the easy way to solve problems so that I can have time to post on AZ Forums.
I don't think that I need two lines of aim to position my body/stance to find the secondary aim points. I only use my eye closest to the edge of the CB as you have posted before. As long as the secondary aim points force me to move my body/stance, I can shoot different cut angles over 30 degrees by aiming at fractions on the OB and not on the felt or the rail behind.
Using the closest eye to the relevant edge of the CB is more parsimonious and for me is all that I need for now.
I am memorizing the fractional points on the OB to achieve more than the 6 discrete cut angles.
Thanks for your and others help. It has made shooting more interesting.
PS,
I also think that 90/90 aiming is more parsimonious.:thumbup:
You might be more advanced with this system than we both are talking about here. The movement in Pro One is typically done after establishing the visuals. Your mind is probably establishing the correct alignment and referring back to the initial starting points may be redundant and negatively affecting your outcome. If it's working, your pool brain has assimilated the process and Pro One should be an easy transition for you. Can't fix something that's not broken. :wink:
BTW, my last pm explained using the system to pocket the remaining angles you don't include in you diagrams.
They don't need to "understand math"; they need to be able to visualize simple geometry. An obvious example is the (very basic) fact that "pivoting" doesn't mean anything specific without a defined pivot point. None of them seems to get this, or any of the other simple geometric facts that show without any doubt (and without any math) that CTE is not an "exact" system.
Frankly, you don't even need to understand simple geometry to know this. All you need is simple logic to know that "exact" systems are always crystal clear, straightforward and simple, while CTE is impossibly vague and hard to follow, even when described by its author.
For the record i have never said this system is exact, what ever that is supposed to mean anyway, also for the record i have never said the system doesn't involve feel also what ever that is supposed to mean.
I also still dont believe any of you have figured out the math for the entire system.
Can someone clarify what is meant by "EXACT" in this thread and who is making this claim? I think we are all amped up about this stuff and now will argue anything about it?
To me, exact means that the system or method arrives at a final, pre-stroke alignment of the cue stick (for a shot with no side spin) such that a line through the center of the stick is in the plane that is perpendicular to the table and passes through the center of the ghost ball position needed for the shot -- no matter where the CB and OB are positioned.
For the record i have never said this system is exact, what ever that is supposed to mean anyway, also for the record i have never said the system doesn't involve feel also what ever that is supposed to mean.
I also still dont believe any of you have figured out the math for the entire system.
Can someone clarify what is meant by "EXACT" in this thread and who is making this claim? I think we are all amped up about this stuff and now will argue anything about it?
Exact means that if a robot followed the system instructions precisely it would make every shot.
But...
1. The system instructions are incompletely defined, so a robot can't follow them at all.
2. Even if the system instructions were well defined, they would only allow a robot to make a small number of shots.
The system is inexact because an experienced pool player's shotmaking "instincts" are an essential ingredient in order for it to work.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FOR THOSE WITH SHORT ATTENTION SPANS: This doesn't make it a bad or ineffective system. It just means it doesn't work the way it's represented to work.
pj
chgo
P.S.
If you think "the math for the system" can be figured out, then you think the system is exact. If it isn't exact, then it isn't mathematically definable.
Some shots aren't directed at a pocket. That's why I said "the ghost ball position needed for the shot." Maybe your "make every shot" is intended to include all targets, not just pockets.
..... But now that I think about it, my language also is a bit vague when it comes to shots other than shooting an OB straight to a pocket.
... If you think "the math for the system" can be figured out, then you think the system is exact. If it isn't exact, then it isn't mathematically definable.
Not sure I get this, pj. Why can't there be mathematically definable systems that are not exact. Is double-the-distance mathematically definable? Is it exact at all distances? I'm not sure of that one.
But surely all sorts of precisely stated "formulas" or mathematical recipes could be devised that don't necessarily work on all shots.
To me, exact means that the system or method arrives at a final, pre-stroke alignment of the cue stick (for a shot with no side spin) such that a line through the center of the stick is in the plane that is perpendicular to the table and passes through the center of the ghost ball position needed for the shot -- no matter where the CB and OB are positioned.
I agree with this in general, though I would word it more like: "The system or method provides an 'exact result' if it determines a pre-stroke alignment... etc." Also, I would change "for the shot" to something like "for the OB to reach the desired target".
I agree with this in general, though I would word it more like: "The system or method provides an 'exact result' if it determines a pre-stroke alignment... etc." Also, I would change "for the shot" to something like "for the OB to reach the desired target".
I wanted to edit it for another reason as well. Thanks for the help. How about this:
An aiming system or method provides an "exact result" if it determines a pre-stroke alignment of the cue stick (for a shot with no side spin) such that a line through the center of the stick is in the plane that is perpendicular to the table and passes through the center of the cue ball and the center of the ghost ball position needed for the OB to travel in the desired direction -- no matter where the CB and OB are positioned.
For the record i have never said this system is exact, what ever that is supposed to mean anyway, also for the record i have never said the system doesn't involve feel also what ever that is supposed to mean.
Many of the yaysayers (I can explicitly recall posts from Spidey, JB, and cookieman) have claimed exactness. Also, right HERE in this advertisement for the CTE/Pro One system where it sells its product...
CTE/PRO ONE is systematic, EXACT, and the most objective aiming system in the world!
Unless someone shows proof, these exactness claims should all be regarded as unsubstantiated. I created this thread to finally substantiate these claims once and for all.
Is "desired results" simply to pocket the ball or to precisely split the pocket (on any sized pocket)? If you feel it's the former rather than the latter, then your definition of "exact" is different from most.
Okay, I think I took this for granted because I assumed everyone shared the same general definition.
This is my definition of an exact system...
An exact system results in a final aimline that goes through the ghost ball center. The ghost ball is the ball that contacts the OB directly opposite the exact center of the pocket.
Does anyone else have a different definition of "exact"?
ex·act
/ɪgˈzækt/ Show Spelled[ig-zakt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
strictly accurate or correct: an exact likeness; an exact description.
2.
precise, as opposed to approximate: the exact sum; the exact date.
3.
admitting of no deviation, as laws or discipline; strict or rigorous.
4.
capable of the greatest precision: exact instruments.
5.
characterized by or using strict accuracy: an exact thinker.
6.
Mathematics . (of a differential equation) noting that the collection of all terms, equated to zero, is an exact differential.
You shouldn't attempt to change the definition of words to meet your argument. If you can do that, then I can say that CTE is BS because my definition of BS is CTE.
An exact system results in a final aimline that goes through the ghost ball center. The ghost ball is the ball that contacts the OB directly opposite the exact center of the pocket.
Does anyone else have a different definition of "exact"?
Your definition is easily understood but probably misses on a few technicalities: (a) It needs to indicate that the aim line you're talking about is also through the CB center. (b) If the stick is angled down, it might be pointing into the table rather than through the ghost ball center. (c) Not all shots have a pocket as the target.
See post #315 for a definition that attempts to cover these bases.
ex·act
/ɪgˈzækt/ Show Spelled[ig-zakt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
strictly accurate or correct: an exact likeness; an exact description.
2.
precise, as opposed to approximate: the exact sum; the exact date.
3.
admitting of no deviation, as laws or discipline; strict or rigorous.
4.
capable of the greatest precision: exact instruments.
5.
characterized by or using strict accuracy: an exact thinker.
6.
Mathematics . (of a differential equation) noting that the collection of all terms, equated to zero, is an exact differential.
You shouldn't attempt to change the definition of words to meet your argument. If you can do that, then I can say that CTE is BS because my definition of BS is CTE.
For 3 years or so, I taught CTE and then PRO ONE. I was not able to describe the system in precise steps. That was frustrating and through determination I finally figured it all out.
Now, I am thrilled to say that CTE is systematic and EXACT. As I instruct I can tell a student exactly what to do visually and motor-wise.
I am very satisfied that an accurate description for CTE now exist. The description is EXACT. I thought this would be pleasing to serious students of the game that wanted such a description.
CTE/PRO ONE is a center pocket system. As humans, do we execute perfectly? NO, but there is an exact system to go by and center pocketing is a typical result of proper execution.
Is the system perfect? No. Are there adjustments at times? Yes.
And without a straight stroke and proper perception, success will be limited accordingly.
All reviews and etc have been on manual cte and not pro1. Pro1 is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (the complete final version) and takes out a lot of the worry about bridging,etc. I just thought i would add this.
Jb i always thought used a version of cte mixed with 90/90 when i viewed his videos and thought he made it up himself and was obviously flawed and i also believe he could not figure out stans systems or he would be in the middle of this. Spideys opinion i believe was that if the Math was worked out for Pro1, his opinion was it would be exact. You would have to ask spidey for his definition of exact?
Me:... If you think "the math for the system" can be figured out, then you think the system is exact. If it isn't exact, then it isn't mathematically definable.
1. Give instructions that can be followed mechanically and precisely, without judgment or guidance ("steering") from the user.
- double-the-distance does this
- pivot systems don't
2. Lead unerringly to an exact CB/OB contact point for each shot that can be pre-calculated from the system instructions.
- double-the-distance does this
- for pivot systems this is moot
3. Lead to the exact CB/OB contact point desired for each shot.
- double-the-distance does this well enough (except at very close range) but not quite exactly
- for pivot systems this is moot
This won't prove anything, but I thought it was interesting.
One of the things that confused me when first watching the DVD was the lack of summarization of when to do what. How do I know which sight point to use? Why are some pivots obvious and others aren't, and how do I know which one to use? I usually need clear cut instructions and reasons why to do something, but I think Stan intended people to watch the DVD and study it and shoot the reference shots and understand the steps, but for me watching it in my bedroom with no table nearby it was definitely not clear.
I saw a list that I think Dr. Dave had summarizing the choices, but I had to find out and verify it for myself, especially as I was having early succes with the system once I understood the lines etc.
So I set up the test above, starting with cue ball 1 being a straight in shot and moving all the way across the table to the side pocket. The balls were spaced pretty close together at the beginning, then about a cue ball apart toward the end to prevent interference when shooting. Since these are all left cuts, the CTE line was to the right edge of the OB for all shots.
From guestimating with the other Cuetable tool (which only had one CB/OB available), the range of shot angles were approximately: 0, 6, 11, 17, 22, 27, 30, 34, 38, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49. Could be off by a degree or so but pretty close.
I understand that on the face of it the system looks like it could only possibly work with 6 or 8 cut angles, but I was able to make every ball shown the first time until I got to CB 12, where I seemed to land on a dividing line between the extreme limit of the B aim point and the need to shift to the 1/8 visualization. I barely missed with one but made it cleanly with the other.
As expected, the aim points/sight lines progressed from A for thick cuts up to CB 7, then B up to CB 11 and almost 12, then 1/8 for the rest. The pivots moved from R for the thicker shots within each aim point to L for the rest, much as Dr. Dave's summary table said.
To emphasize, I paid a lot of attention to the lines, using my cue and eyes to line them up as best I could, then I put all of my attention to approaching the CB 1/2 tip offset and pivoted without looking at the shot or adjusting, then looked up at the OB, stroked once or twice and fired. If I somehow subconsiously adjusted for each of these shots while doing this, then damn I'm good, and I'm more than happy to use this system even if there is no math behind it...
Look, I'm as math and science based and anyone. My IQ is well above genius level and I was a complete math/science/computer geek growing up. I want - I need - to know how things work. If you can't "prove" it, it doesn't exist, and for me that pertains to most things in life. So I completely, 100% get where the "naysayers" are coming from, even if it is somewhat arguing over semantics or claims, whether intentional or not, that have been made on websites and in other materials. Yet here I sit, with less than 8 hours invested in studying and working with this system, and I'm having great results, as inexplicable as they might be. If geometry exists to prove how to reconcile this approach to the true aim line, it may not be as easy as some think to prove or diagram on paper, especially with way the relative size of the object ball changes with distance. I've tried doing some diagrams, and everytime I get close to what I think is a possible answer I find a shot or have a thought that doesn't work. As I continue to play with the system and verify my thoughts one way or the other, I'll obviously post back with any findings I have, and hopefully through productive discussions amongst everyone here a definitive answer one way or the other can be found.
I think the wind was taken out of a handful of people sails a few posts back :grin:
Some people in this thread have claimed the geometry has been figured out already for this system, if i understand your post, you basically do not agree with these certain members claims in this thread since you are continuing to try and figure it out, Scott? You seem like an unbiased guy Scott and i look forward to your future posts on cte/pro1 :grin:
:thumbup:
