Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems

AtLarge said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do not get it! the genius of this system is that there is only 6-cut angles! and i am not sure stan even has that many but dr dave says he does, i would like someone to show me where that medium thin shot comes up in the dvd?

You guys think the straight in shot that stan teaches will only work on a 0 degree shot! and you can go down the list on dr daves table.

ps : i notice jb is still making cte vids :grin:
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you need to read my bullet points a little closer. It's the same thing (the pivot starting point is merely a different "radius" from the same circle). If you try this at a table-- you'll see it's the same.

Pivot directions are a moot point, also. Keep in mind, when making a DVD--- it's better to present things in a way that make sense to the player without diving into the minutia (as we are now).

If you pivot past the center and pivot ALL the way to the far left---- you can start your pivot from that point and then pivot (back-pivot) to the center.

I explained why I used 1/2 ball pivot--- and I also explained why/how it's the same and why 1/2 tip pivot was presented in the DVD.

Pivot lengths/directions don't "change" the system nor does it change "which version" of CTE we're discussing. The sooner people realize the pivot is a "circle" - the better. With a circle, you can start at any part of that circle and get to the same point from either direction.

So, setup the drill and report back with your findings. Let's not argue/discuss anything until you've tried it. I don't want to waste each other's time.


Dave

P.S. This works with a 1/10 tip pivot all the way to a 12" pivot.

P.P.S. If some of you would like to schedule a live webcast of this while I'm at a table, we can do that tonight. Just the top math people in the thread. Not everyone.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
... So, setup the drill and report back with your findings. ..
Click to expand...

I did try it. And I did it two ways -- the way you did it in the video and the way Stan prescribes for those shots. In neither case would it "work" for all 12 balls.

Dave, you are using 4 different sets of visuals in those 12 shots. For the first 2 shots, you are using an edge-to-inside-1/8 secondary alignment line; for the next 3 you are using an edge-to-1/4 secondary alignment line; for the next 6 you are using an edge-to-1/2 secondary alignment line; and for the last shot you are using an edge-to-1/8 secondary alignment line.

For all of them you are using the same CB/OB separation, the same pivot length, and, supposedly the same offset and right-to-left pivot. Those set-ups should produce only 4 cut angles. You might pocket more than four of the balls (if you shot them) because of pocket slop. And, without shooting them, as you did, it might look like you are right-on to the ghost ball for more than 4 of the shots because of "visual slop."

Dave, suppose you placed the six "B" shots from your video on the center line near the middle of a three-cushion table. Then do the same relative placements of the cue balls and the same pivot lengths and pivots as in your video. If you did this with robotic perfection, do you really think the 6 shots would all hit the cushion in the same place? No! The OB's would follow 6 distinct but parallel lines to the cushion, because you would be cutting all of them at the same angle.

P.S. Your bridge length in the video was really not equal to the CB/OB separation. You would need to bridge at the cushion edge for that, not 3 or 4 inches behind the cushion edge.

Got to go out now for several hours. Catch you later.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
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
Click to expand...

Pat, I'm still waiting for you and the rest of the naysayers to apologize to the guys you have in the past so shamefullly ridiculed.

But in the meantime, here's one more for you to "grope" with Pat:

Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: "Patrick Johnson" <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1998/04/21
Subject: Re: what is the triangle aiming system?
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Understanding the carom tangent has become one of my aiming techniques in
games that don’t require caroms. I believe this is partly what creates


The carom tangent helps my aiming, too. Visualizing in tangible, physical
terms is always best for me, and seeing the contact point as the one which
will send the cue ball along the tangent line (assuming no draw or follow)
makes it all more "real" for me, actually helping me to align the contact
points more clearly. Of course, it also adds a lot to my visualization and
control of shape.


One thing I consciously try to avoid, however, is "intuitive" shooting. To
me, this means unconscious use of information which is more effectively and
consistently used if done consciously. Consciously applied information also
becomes part of my shot-making "arsenal" applicable to less typical shots,
and another building block in my learning process (rather than one more
deposit into the intuitive "black box"). Also, when I'm "off" only the
things I can consciously apply will reliably get me back "on." Trying to
regain my "feel" is like groping around in the dark.
Pat Johnson
 
stan shuffett said:
CTE/Pro One makes the 12 balls all day long, manually or PRO ONE.

Stan
Click to expand...
Sorry, Stan, but you haven't added anything of substance with this post. Simply asserting that "it works" is exactly the content-free kind of post that this thread is trying to avoid.

pj
chgo
 
JoeyA said:
Pat, I'm still waiting for you and the rest of the naysayers to apologize to the guys you have in the past so shamefullly ridiculed.
Click to expand...
Joey, your recent posts invite more ridicule, not less. They're becoming more and more devoted to your single-minded obsession with "the bad guys". If you truly have nothing of substance to say in these threads, maybe you should take a pass on them.

But in the meantime, here's one more for you to "grope" with Pat:

Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: "Patrick Johnson" <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1998/04/21
Subject: Re: what is the triangle aiming system?
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Understanding the carom tangent has become one of my aiming techniques in
games that don’t require caroms. I believe this is partly what creates


The carom tangent helps my aiming, too. Visualizing in tangible, physical
terms is always best for me, and seeing the contact point as the one which
will send the cue ball along the tangent line (assuming no draw or follow)
makes it all more "real" for me, actually helping me to align the contact
points more clearly. Of course, it also adds a lot to my visualization and
control of shape.


One thing I consciously try to avoid, however, is "intuitive" shooting. To
me, this means unconscious use of information which is more effectively and
consistently used if done consciously. Consciously applied information also
becomes part of my shot-making "arsenal" applicable to less typical shots,
and another building block in my learning process (rather than one more
deposit into the intuitive "black box"). Also, when I'm "off" only the
things I can consciously apply will reliably get me back "on." Trying to
regain my "feel" is like groping around in the dark.
Pat Johnson
Click to expand...
Again, Joey, this is all still true - and none of it contradicts anything I've ever said about pivot systems. Clearly you don't understand what I said then any better than you understand what I say now, but if you'd like to try to show otherwise, go ahead.

pj
chgo
 
Stan:
CTE/Pro One makes the 12 balls all day long, manually or PRO ONE.
Click to expand...
Me:
Sorry, Stan, but you haven't added anything of substance with this post. Simply asserting that "it works" is exactly the content-free kind of post that this thread is trying to avoid.
Click to expand...
Stan:
The 12 shots work with precise visuals and pivots all day long as prescribed in CTE/Pro One.
Click to expand...
That doesn't really add much either. Again, your just asserting things with no supporting facts.

To be clear: being "inexact" in this way (requiring user "steering") doesn't make your system "bad". We're just trying to be clear about how it works.

pj
chgo
 
lfigueroa said:
Say it one more time and you can go back home to Kansas.

Lou Figueroa
and you get to
take Toto too :-)
Click to expand...

That's the problem, what he says is true but it just doesn't sink into your thick stubborn skull. Hence you keep asking and we keep repeating and you refuse to try shooting with it and so on and so on. Do they sell crow where you live LOU or should we send you some?
 
Jal said:
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.).....


Jim
Click to expand...

Jim,
Can we assume that some/most will want to shoot the post-pivot shot from their normal stance and stroking directly under the shoulder?

Can we assume that some/most would stroke between their eyes and right under the center of the chin?

My eyes are 2.25 inches apart, so the cue would be offset by 1.125 inches to the side (away from the pocket/target) of the secondary aim lline.

I use a normal 12 inch bridge behind the CB and my eyes are 24 inches behind my bridge. so 1/2 tip offset from the center of the CB to 1.125 inches off of the secondary aim line 36 inches from the CB to my eyes?

This is a start, but as you first said, there may be other ways to visualize what to do. If that's the case, then each individual would have different results - cut angles for each secondary aim lne.

Looks like a moving target to me.

Thanks.
 
stan shuffett said:
EXACT, PJ.
You will see one day.
Click to expand...
Maybe one day I'll see what you mean by "exact".

In order for CTE to be "exact" in the way we're talking about here (not needing any assistance from the shooter), it would have to be demonstrable on paper (probably not using much math), and probably easy to describe and understand. So far CTE hasn't shown any of those traits. People who believe they're not "helping" the system is not evidence that they're not helping it - players (even the best players) do things they're not aware of all the time.

I still don't see why it's so important for CTE to be portrayed as "exact". As other CTE users have said, if it works, who cares? Maybe it would be even more popular as a realistic system that doesn't do everything but helps in clear and concrete ways to optimize players' natural aiming abilities. A good system marketed the right way might get beyond cult status.

pj
chgo
 
Neil:
[pj] refuses to even learn it properly.
Click to expand...
CTE doesn't have to be "learned properly" to know if it's "exact" or not. The very nature of systematic precision is that it doesn't have to be experienced, but can be objectively demonstrated or disproven. In this case the system has key gaps (undefined cue placement and pivot) that make it clearly inexact on its face, without the need for any technical proof.

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

Some things:

[snip the things]
Click to expand...
What you claim to be doing is logically impossible. You don't have to know the first thing about math or geometry to see instantly that you simply can't line up only four different ways, as you described, and yet get 12 different cut angles.

Without at least that much understanding, I don't see how you can talk sensibly about this. In fact, you don't.

pj
chgo
 
Quote:
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


Patrick,

I'm going to make a few statements and let the chips fall where they may.

I think you want to win this argument about CTE/Pro One not being an accurate aiming system and want to prove that it is not EXACT and I would not object to you proving that to me. Now, I'm not going to get into one of those "Let's play a set of this and a set of that for this amount of money and we'll see who knows what".

I think you play at a decent level, probably better than decent, probably a little closer to my level of play, (which is just that, a little better than decent) although I have never seen you hit a ball.

I can play equally as well with contact point to contact point or CTE/Pro One.

You like many of us spend an INCREDIBLE amount of time discussing pool.

How about you learning to play equally well with CTE/Pro One? If you can do this, just like I can, you can then tell us that it is not exact. I went back and did some research on the posts that you have made and others about aiming systems including the old CTE discussions and you and others have argued FOR YEARS that it is not an exact aiming system.

While this may or may not have been true in the past, I cannot have faith in what you say until I know that you can play at the same level using CTE/Pro One.

I know that even you can learn how to play consistently well with CTE/Pro One if you choose to.

Just what is it that you're risking by not putting in the time to learn how to use CTE/Pro One?

You've spent YEARS discussing CTE and now you have a chance to learn how to use it proficiently but so far you have been unwilling to do so.

In spite of our differences, I respect your willingness to expend energy and effort in detailing the mysteries of pool. Certainly with all of the time you have spent, saying that it is not exact, you would want to know how people can play well using it.

Look, this isn't a trap to make you look foolish and this post isn't an effort for attacks on you or what you have or haven't done.

I can tell you from personal experience, that CTE/Pro One has NOT hurt my game.
I can tell you that it has HELPED my game without a doubt.
I can tell you without a doubt, it is not going to make me world beater.
I can shoot with CTE/Pro One or I can use contact point to contact point and jump back and forth between them without suffering ill consequences.

Now what is the risk for you putting in the time to become proficient with using CTE/Pro One? (Who knows, once you are able to play just as well with it as without it, you may be able to determine for yourself if it is exact or not) UNTIL you can play well with it, you cannot know why it is EFFECTIVE. You may guess at why some people play well with it but you will never know for sure why it is SO EFFECTIVE.

You've wasted years of your life arguing, writing and discussing CTE. Why not get to the bottom of this?

If you became just as proficient with using CTE/Pro One as you are with whatever you are using now, and you still said that it wasn't exact, that you made adjustments to make the shots, I would believe you. For me, I just don't seem to be making adjustments, not adjustments like you are suggesting. My adjustments (very fine adjustments) with CTE/Pro One are just like that of contact point to contact point, perhaps even less.

There was a time long before CTE/Pro One where I would have to agree with you that CTE REQUIRED major adjustments (in order to be effective with it), but now, I just don't see CTE/Pro One as needing major adjustments. The minor fine-tune adjustments that I do with CTE/Pro One have actually been reduced as compared to contact point to contact point aiming but I'm still open to someone like yourself convincing me that I make adjustments and that it is not exact. Until you can say that you shoot equally well with it as without it, you can't possibly know how people excel using it. At least that's my perspective today. :)

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