Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems

[Patrick Johnson]

What I do like about "Pro One" is that it divides the shot angles into full, 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 hits, and then goes from there. It's always a good start. So there is definitely improvement, and "Pro One" is bound to be more "exact" than standard CTE.

I don't think Pro One uses different alignments than CTE - doesn't it just change how you "pivot" (from on-the-table to in-the-air)?

It doesn't matter how exactly you line up the shot initially. CTE, ETC, CTC, offset, ... It's a distraction for your brain. All you need to do is AIM and then bring your whole shooting body down, including your bridgehand, cue, head and shooting arm. The actual aiming process happens during the pivot, which doesn't have to be a pivot at all. It nullifies everything you did beforehand, and your subconscious aiming processor can take over.

I don't think I agree with this. I think having a pre-shot routine with visuals that orient your body in a consistent way relative to the shot line is definitely a good thing - even if it doesn't "aim for you" as CTE/ProOne claims to do.

It's also bad for your mechanics

I suppose this could be true, but I'm not sure (and I'm not going to "try" CTE long enough to find out - it doesn't promise me enough upside to risk it).

pj
chgo

 

[Masayoshi]

No Patrick. You're wrong.

I'm just really more interested in hearing your apology that you and your merry band of naysayers, were wrong about Hal Houle, Stan Shuffett, CTE/Pro One and aiming systems users.

Please give some examples of him being wrong.

You and a few other Naysayers ridiculed and lambasted CTE/Pro One users and aiming system users for a very long time and you got away with it.

Now, I am just reminding you and the rest, of the naysayers history of posting negative information about them and CTE/Pro One.


What's the matter Patrick, it doesn't feel good when someone's giving you a little taste of what you've been giving everyone on this forum since day 1?

Don't have me digging up some of your negative comments and those of Dr. Dave and the rest of the naysayers. We can regurgitate it all over again if you like.

Can you give some examples, please?

Start a new thread and come clean.
Have Dr. Dave and you make a formal apology to the yeasayers, acknowledging that you were wrong for ridiculing the users of aiming systems, specifically CTE/Pro One including Stan Shuffett and that it is an EFFECTIVE AND ACCURATE AIMING SYSTEM, that it may be the best method of aiming out there and that while you haven't been able to substantiate the math just yet, you will give it your best effort to determine why it works so well.

Effective? possibly, depending on the user.

Accurate? maybe, if the user already has a pretty good feel for the game.

Best? No way.

Also, we have been able to substantiate the math, you yeasayers just tend to ignore those posts and whine about being persecuted.

Then the remainder of the naysayers will fall in lock step with you and brotherly love will return to the forum, until your next round of aiming system bashing begins.

Don't forget: You posted on RSB that you used aiming systems. Don't make me go get those posts.

JoeyA

Um...Okay...What does him using aiming systems have to do with anything?

 

[lfigueroa]

Please give some examples of him being wrong.


Can you give some examples, please?




Effective? possibly, depending on the user.

Accurate? maybe, if the user already has a pretty good feel for the game.

Best? No way.

Also, we have been able to substantiate the math, you yeasayers just tend to ignore those posts and whine about being persecuted.



Um...Okay...What does him using aiming systems have to do with anything?

I would also have to wonder about equipment that would favor a successful outcome with CTE/Pro1. If it's a Sears eight foot home table with 5" pockets almost anything will get the balls in the pockets. Even a seven foot Valley with big pockets. OTOH, I was in Santa Monica this past week playing at House of Billiards where almost every single table had something like 4 3/8" pockets. The same player would be a dead duck on that kind of equipment.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Neil]

.................

 

[dr_dave]

The most exact (not really exact) aiming system is the ones that are used by the pros that run 200-400 balls w/o a miss, and the pros that score in the mid to high 900’s on Accu Stats score card. All of the ones that I have talked to and read about use contact to contact point, ghost ball, fraction, and adjust all of them to feel. They got the feel from shooting every shot on the table 1000’s of times and over many years. Johnnyt

Well stated. I agree. Most pros are DAM-good aimers.

Regards,
Dave

 

[lfigueroa]

My 7' Valley has extended shelfs and 4 1/8" pockets. CTE works just fine on it. So, there goes that theory of yours out the window.

No, not really, but I wouldn't expect you to see that

Lou Figueroa

 

[scottjen26]

Okay, I typed my previous post out a little quickly the other night, now I see my IQ/genius comment got me in trouble…

Just to clarify, the point I was trying to make was not that I'm smarter than anyone else (even though I am ), or that I can figure this stuff out any better then anyone else, especially since I'm just recently jumping into the fray. Since most of us don't know each other personally, I was trying to get across through text that I'm a pretty cerebral and OCD type of guy who really studies things I'm interested in, and certainly not normally one to subscribe to ideas without hard facts to back them up. I actually tried playing with these concepts two years ago and abandoned them since I didn't get great results and it didn't make sense to me how it could possiblly work. I really had to get beyond my initial thoughts on the subject and study the material, ask questions, and most importantly try things out on the table before I "got" it.

I know there have been pages and pages of threads around whether this and other pivot-based systems are exact or can be geometrically proven. Maybe they can, maybe they can't, personally too early in my experience to be able to tell yet so I remain agnostic on that point. Even through the exercise I posted, and a few hours of normal practice, I still can't believe how I'm dropping into the line correctly with what feels like no adjustment, just by taking a few seconds to visualize some lines and dropping into the shot. It may be getting me close and I'm subconciously adjusting on the way down, as much as I've tried to ignore the object ball and pocket once the lines are sighted and while performing the pivoting process. I'll continue to play with this and try to analyze whether I truly am deceiving myself that well on these shots. However, I have 20 years of playing experience at a decent level to leverage, and I'm telling you I feel more locked in and am making more difficult shots a higher percentage of the time than I ever did, and that's with only a few hours of practice. Looking forward to the next few weeks to see if things continue to improve or if I come to any other conclusions.

Thanks JSP for the links to previous math-based posts, I had not seen those. I've made some limited attempts to diagram things as well and I can't get it to make sense either, just when I do for a particular shot I find another one that doesn't work on paper. But I'm missing what I think others are as well, the translation from 2D diagrams to 3D, which I think would alter the calculations since the distances from the initial aim point to the post-pivot point would change with the relative size of the object ball. I also think the relative type of the pivot could have something to do with this. Unforunately I don't have any 3D drawing tools at my disposal, but eventually I think someone or a group of people will be able to take 5 - 10 shots of various distances and angles and be able to plot them and determine if or how the pivoting arrives at the true line of aim.


For now, I for one am not going to get too hung up on the semantics used to describe the systems or the personalities of anyone on either side, but I do understand why some people on both sides are as adamant in their point of view as they are. If the system is truly a visual one, and can't or won't be proven mathematically, then it still might have value as a better aiming approach than trying to get someone, especially a beginner, to visualize contact points or ghost balls. It's also possible that there is more to this than meets the eye, so to speak. For me at the moment it's providing a consistent, visual approach to each shot that already feels better than my old method and the results so far are very positive. As I feel like a recent convert, or at least heading in that direction, I'll try to log on every day or two to monitor the discussions and contribute where I can.

Scott

 

[dr_dave]

Have Dr. Dave and you make a formal apology to the yeasayers, acknowledging that you were wrong for ridiculing the users of aiming systems, specifically CTE/Pro One including Stan Shuffett and that it is an EFFECTIVE AND ACCURATE AIMING SYSTEM, that it may be the best method of aiming out there and that while you haven't been able to substantiate the math just yet, you will give it your best effort to determine why it works so well.

Joey,

You are correct ... I have ridiculed some of the outrageous claims made by many align-and-pivot aiming system proponents over these many years, and long before Stan ever came on the scene. I see no need to make an apology for this. (BTW, for examples of some of the outrageous claims, see the DAM introduction.)

I certainly don't think Stan's version of CTE is an "accurate aiming system" for a wide range of shots (i.e., over a wide range of cut angles and CB-OB distances). Although, I do understand how some people can learn to use the system effectively. Also, I do think that Stan's version of CTE is better than others that have been offered in the past. It offers more lines of aim (6) for a given CB-OB relationship, and it uses a much smaller (1/2-tip) pivot. These are certainly improvements over previous versions, as described on my CTE resource page.

I think the "math" on how and why CTE methods work when used effectively is already clearly explained here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE​

Also, some of the many reasons why CTE can be helpful to some people are clearly explained here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#benefits​

I see no need for further analysis. I think CTE is very well understood.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What Joey means is that he has never understood the topic to begin with and simply goes automatically into fight mode whenever it comes up. To him the important thing isn't what's true or false; it's which "side" you're on.

pj
chgo

Joey:
No Patrick. You're wrong.

I'm just really more interested in hearing your apology

That's what I said: you're more interested in "us vs. them" than the truth about these systems.

that you and your merry band of naysayers, were wrong about Hal Houle, Stan Shuffett, CTE/Pro One and aiming systems users.

But we weren't wrong. All of these systems are inexact, as we've been saying since the RSB days. We've also been saying since then (over and over and over) that these systems can be useful to their users even though they're obviously not "exact".

What's the matter Patrick, it doesn't feel good when someone's giving you a little taste of what you've been giving everyone on this forum since day 1?

What exactly do you think you're giving me a taste of, Joey?

Don't have me digging up some of your negative comments and those of Dr. Dave and the rest of the naysayers. We can regurgitate it all over again if you like.

Please do. It's what you're here for.

Have Dr. Dave and you make a formal apology to the yeasayers, acknowledging that you were wrong for ridiculing the users of aiming systems

We ridiculed them for insisting on their unsubstantiated (and frankly dumb) claims about the "exactness" of these systems. We also ridiculed them for constantly misrepresenting our position, as you're doing now.

specifically CTE/Pro One including Stan Shuffett and that it is an EFFECTIVE AND ACCURATE AIMING SYSTEM

We've always said it can be effective for its users, but that it's not "accurate" without user "steering". Nothing has changed.

that it may be the best method of aiming out there

I seriously doubt this, but I suppose anything's possible.

and that while you haven't been able to substantiate the math just yet, you will give it your best effort to determine why it works so well.

We "determined how it works" long ago (by approximating the cut angle so the user can finish by feel) and haven't changed our minds about that to this day. In fact, it has become crystal clear with the release of Stan's DVD.

Then the remainder of the naysayers will fall in lock step with you and brotherly love will return to the forum, until your next round of aiming system bashing begins.

I think you have much more to do with the lack of "brotherly love" here than any of the "naysayers".

Don't forget: You posted on RSB that you used aiming systems. Don't make me go get those posts.

Please do.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

Right above the bolded part, Stan says "Now, I am thrilled to say that CTE is systematic and EXACT."

He also claims that the description of CTE is exact. These are two separate statements.

So you agree that CTE relies on feel? If so, that would technically make you a naysayer.

lol your a funny guy, how your twisting things just like you said people shouldn't do in one of your posts :thumbup: I still wondering how you guys had the nuts to claim you had this system worked out on paper already lol and then you have the nuts to post something like that :thumbup: you guys are really grasping at straws now and embarrassing yourself s in my eyes anyway Read stans post! you guys have nothing left.

 

[Masayoshi]

lol your a funny guy, how your twisting things just like you said people shouldn't do in one of your posts :thumbup:

How is that twisting anything?

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.

You agree that CTE relies on feel.

The general concensus between naysayers is that CTE relies on feel rather than being exact.

The general consensus between yeasayers is that CTE is exact and doesn't rely on feel.

You would fall into the first category. Therefore, you are technically a naysayer.

 

[JoeyA]

Please give some examples of him being wrong.


Can you give some examples, please?




Effective? possibly, depending on the user.

Accurate? maybe, if the user already has a pretty good feel for the game.

Best? No way.

Also, we have been able to substantiate the math, you yeasayers just tend to ignore those posts and whine about being persecuted.



Um...Okay...What does him using aiming systems have to do with anything?

Uh........ NO. I have too many other posts that I have to reply already.

 

[duckie]

One of the reason CTE/Pro 1 appears to work is because of the margin or error there is on all shots.

The statement " ball goes in the pocket" is not the same as " the ball goes in the center of the pocket".

So, if the standard for accuracy is " ball in the pocket" then one can say it is accurate. But, if the standard for accuaracy is "always center pocket", then it is not. Maybe they just don't have high standards.

The only way for any system to be considered center pocket is if that system aiming procedures starts with finding the spot on the table or spot on the ball that will make the OB go center pocket. GB does this.

The margin of error for a shot varies with pocket size, OB distance from the pocket and the angle of the OB to the center of the pocket.

One thing that has been missing in this so called "proofs" is where the shots are being made from, the pocket size and if the ball just goes in the pocket or if it goes center of the pocket.

Also, not mentioned has been if the ball went in the pocket where they attended or if they just wanted to ball to go in and not care if it was center pocket.

 

[JoeyA]

That's what I said: you're more interested in "us vs. them" than the truth about these systems.


But we weren't wrong. All of these systems are inexact, as we've been saying since the RSB days. We've also been saying since then (over and over and over) that these systems can be useful to their users even though they're obviously not "exact".


What exactly do you think you're giving me a taste of, Joey?


Please do. It's what you're here for.


We ridiculed them for insisting on their unsubstantiated (and frankly dumb) claims about the "exactness" of these systems. We also ridiculed them for constantly misrepresenting our position, as you're doing now.


We've always said it can be effective for its users, but that it's not "accurate" without user "steering". Nothing has changed.


I seriously doubt this, but I suppose anything's possible.


We "determined how it works" long ago (by approximating the cut angle so the user can finish by feel) and haven't changed our minds about that to this day. In fact, it has become crystal clear with the release of Stan's DVD.


I think you have much more to do with the lack of "brotherly love" here than any of the "naysayers".


Please do.

pj
chgo

Here I've got time to respond to the last one:
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1998/12/08
Subject: Re: Aiming Technique
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Dale W. Baker wrote:
David,

If this method works for you, so be it. I don't believe there are too
many players in this forum that will advocate such a method.



This variation on the "ghost ball" method of aiming is discussed fairly
frequently here, and I recall several posters being in favor of it. It
doesn't have a particularly bad reputation that I know of, though it's
not my preferred method because I like to aim more directly at the
object ball contact point.

The aiming method should be by "feel". You get a sense for the target, and shoot.


I don't agree. It's true that many players aim by "feel," but that
doesn't mean that every player "should" aim this way. And how is
anybody supposed to follow these instructions? "Get a sense for the
target and shoot?" What does that mean to anybody but you? Is it like
"You'll know it when you see it?"

I think a player should have an idea of what he's aiming at, and what
he's aiming at it. For instance, I aim the contact point on the cue
ball (which I have to imagine, because it's on the other side of the cue
ball) at the contact point on the object ball. To help me do this
accurately, I aim the cue stick at the point it would be touching on the
"ghost ball" (this is the imaginary ball sitting in the spot the cue
ball will occupy when it hits the object ball) as if I was shooting the
same shot with the two balls frozen together. (Of course, I adjust all
this for the combined effect of squirt, swerve and throw).


By the way, this isn't a complicated calculation of some kind that I do
while I'm aiming. I just try to point something (my stick and the cue
ball) at something (the ghost ball and object ball), rather than just
"feel" it. It sounds like David's trying to do that, too, and I say
it's the right thing to try to do.


Pat Johnson
Chicago

 

[champ2107]

How is that twisting anything?



You agree that CTE relies on feel.

The general concensus between naysayers is that CTE relies on feel rather than being exact.

The general consensus between yeasayers is that CTE is exact and doesn't rely on feel.

You would fall into the first category. Therefore, you are technically a naysayer.

naysayer! i dont think i have used that term yet in these discussions ever, but i could be wrong. How are you using that term in relation to CTE/PRO1 and i will then answer your question. I can hear foot steps, the fat lady is about to sing on you guys

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'd like for everyone to try this at home>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wu2Y2xdwRU

Some things:

- This is a good example of how the shot circle works. This was never included in the DVD because 1/2 tip pivots were chosen, so it's really not needed. I think this is a good example of how CTE pivots should work. This would only over-complicate a DVD; however, with all the talk that CTE only figures 6 angles per OB/CB distance, I thought I'd make the video. TRY THIS YOURSELF on your table or at the pool hall. Don't even bother shooting the shot--- just check to see that the shaft goes through the CB and the center of the ghost ball.

- I use a 1/2 ball pivot because it's easier to see. If you pivot 1/2 tip shy of center, you're at the "starting position" for Stan's DVD

- I pivot from the right on every shot because it's easier to see, it's the starting position for the beginning shots and also because it "doesn't matter." Pivoting from the left means you're only starting from a different position on the "circle."

- When I pivot for these examples, the bridge is the pivot point (as if there were a nail through my shaft)

- CTE provides a vector through the HEART of the ghostball on every single shot--- not 6 angles.

- The 1/2 tip pivot mitigates bridge length distance changes / corrections, which is why it was put on the DVD. If you want to have fun with 1/2 ball pivots, setup different shots within 12" distance (just to start with) and mirror the distance/bridge length and pivot to center and watch everything go.

- For 1/2 ball pivots and CB/OB distances beyond 12" (bridge length), you must use the "shot circle" and pivot along the arc, pretending your tip extends to the OB vertical plane and pivoting "from the tip, backwards" --- the pivot point works itself out. Once again, with 1/2 tip pivots--- you can just follow Stan's instructions.

Before anyone posts anything--- go to a table and try this. It won't take long for you to see that this will put you to the heart of the ghostball on every shot. Pay close attention to your alignment - make sure that's right first and foremost.

Follow the instructions closely and let's discuss further. Sorry for being MIA--- I'm sick as a dog with a fever. I made this video so we can have a clear discussion on how this works.

Dave

Just wanted to bump my post over these arguments. I hope we can start with this and get back to a meaningful discussion. There's zero feel in the setup of this video. I hope everyone tries this at home and reports back.

Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Joey quoting me from 12 years ago(!):
... I just try to point something (my stick and the cue
ball) at something (the ghost ball and object ball), rather than just "feel" it.

This is still true, Joey. How do you think it contradicts anything I've said about CTE? Maybe you missed the word "just" in there?

Regardless of what you think this means, it's yet another example of your obsession with "naysayers" and trying to show "them" up. Don't you think it would be more adult and less disruptive to talk about the subject rather than the participants?

pj
chgo

 

[Jal]

.... But I'm missing what I think others are as well, the translation from 2D diagrams to 3D, which I think would alter the calculations since the distances from the initial aim point to the post-pivot point would change with the relative size of the object ball.

Of course, it all depends on how you line up, pre-pivot. If you line up such that the cue is actually parallel to the edge to A line, the math that Jsp linked to already takes OB distance into account. But if you line up such that the cue is apparently parallel to the edge to A line (i.e., parallel on the image plane of the eye), then that does make a drastic difference. (I did the math on this with regard to double-the-distance pivoting some time back). But we can't pin it down until the advocates provide a precise description of that initial alignment. (Other interpretations are possible, and I don't feel like generating an endless series of graphs as it morphs from day to day, and user to user.)

Unforunately I don't have any 3D drawing tools at my disposal, but eventually I think someone or a group of people will be able to take 5 - 10 shots of various distances and angles and be able to plot them and determine if or how the pivoting arrives at the true line of aim.

Google's Sketchup is such a tool, free, and impressive. It does both perspective and orthographic projections. I've used it to make models of a table, balls and cue. Unfortunately, I'm on dialup and the files are fairly large, so sending them to someone would not be all that convenient. I believe there are several billiard models available at the Sketchup "Warehouse," though I haven't checked them out. For doing 3-D geometry, less realistic representations would probably be better.

Jim

 

[scottjen26]

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottjen26
.... But I'm missing what I think others are as well, the translation from 2D diagrams to 3D, which I think would alter the calculations since the distances from the initial aim point to the post-pivot point would change with the relative size of the object ball.

Of course, it all depends on how you line up, pre-pivot. If you line up such that the cue is actually parallel to the edge to A line, the math that Jsp linked to already takes OB distance into account. But if you line up such that the cue is apparently parallel to the edge to A line (i.e., parallel on the image plane of the eye), then that does make a drastic difference. (I did the math on this with regard to double-the-distance pivoting some time back). But we can't pin it down until the advocates provide a precise description of that initial alignment. (Other interpretations are possible, and I don't feel like generating an endless series of graphs as it morphs from day to day, and user to user.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by scottjen26
Unforunately I don't have any 3D drawing tools at my disposal, but eventually I think someone or a group of people will be able to take 5 - 10 shots of various distances and angles and be able to plot them and determine if or how the pivoting arrives at the true line of aim.

Google's Sketchup is such a tool, free, and impressive. It does both perspective and orthographic projections. I've used it to make models of a table, balls and cue. Unfortunately, I'm on dialup and the files are fairly large, so sending them to someone would not be all that convenient. I believe there are several billiard models available at the Sketchup "Warehouse," though I haven't checked them out. For doing 3-D geometry, less realistic representations would probably be better.

Jim

I think the work you did already Jim is great. I agree that a key issue is in fact the initial alignment, a point that I didn't quite understand from my initial viewings of the DVD. I still don't know that I understand it enough to discuss in detail, but I think when I pick up the correct visual as Stan advocates, I establish sort of a visual plane that is through the cue ball and perpendicular to my sight line and I just move in to the cue ball along that line until I'm over the shot, then pivot and shoot.

I think the line of approach actually ends up being between the sight line and CTE line, but I would have to pay attention to that more as I experiment with this to be certain. I know my initial attempts were trying to stay on or parallel to one line or the other and that didn't work for me. Also willing to submit that's where feel could come into place, but I have a hard time believing that I could pre-establish an alignment angle that would later through a pivot turn into the exact aim line all through feel. Maybe there's something to the combination of perceived OB size along with distance and angle that changes the initial line of aim in a subtle manner to allow for shots in between the agreed upon 6 or 8 cut angles that this looks like it handles on paper.

Also thanks for the reference to the Google tool, had no idea that was out there. I also saw the other night that Cuetable has a 3D option now as well, but I think that's just for rendering the drawings. Honestly I think I'm going to need a few more practice sessions to try and put my thoughts together on this and see how my understanding and execution progresses before I'll feel remotely qualified to even attempt to begin to figure out why it works. I'll keep at it though...


And Dave, didn't forget you, I'll check out your link and look at that later as well...

Scott

 

[AtLarge]

Just wanted to bump my post over these arguments. I hope we can start with this and get back to a meaningful discussion. There's zero feel in the setup of this video. I hope everyone tries this at home and reports back.

Dave

I'll take a crack at first comments on your new video.

The conclusion that CTE results in just 6 cut angles in either direction for a given CB/OB separation applies to Stan's CTE, as presented in his video.

Your video is an attempt to disprove the 6-angles conclusion, but you are using an entirely different version of CTE:

• Offsetting the stick 1/2 ball rather than 1/2 tip;
• Mechanically pivoting from the same side for all shots;
• Using a pivot length equal to the CB/OB separation.

You'll probably say that these differences make no difference. But I think they do. If you want to debunk the 6-angle conclusion regarding Stan's CTE, then do it using Stan's CTE.

Alternatively, if you have a better version of mechanical, on-the-table CTE than Stan presented, a version that does not suffer from the 6-angle limitation, please go ahead and give us complete details on that version.