Here:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/speed.html#balls
I mean, essentially you are correct, but the stun shot could mess you up if you don't know about that one.
Reply to Dan White's Questions
- Thread starter JB Cases
- Start date
Here:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/speed.html#balls
I mean, essentially you are correct, but the stun shot could mess you up if you don't know about that one.
It's fascinating and sad to actually see someone be willfully responsible for dropping the intelligence level of humanity.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Yes. If the shooter chooses the half ball hit aim.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
I have used a lot of facepalm(paw) photos of big cats in my time on the internet, but your post is the first to actually make me put my face in my palm and sigh in a long, long time. It's not that I don't read things that irk me and are stupid, but it takes a lot to actually trigger this response nowadays. Kudos, although I'll have to deduct troll points since it actually took reading two posts, the half ball post also contributed. Still, a great effort.
The part about top spin was particularly excellent:rotflmao1:
Can't wait for your take on the "screw" shot.
Attachments
Last edited:
More than 50%. Trust me.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/brian-cris...art-of-aiming/paperback/product-23063409.html
About 5 years ago I studied 100 racks of nineball from Accustat DVDs. I did this to
determine how often shots come up in each of area on the table that I call Shot Zones.
There are 3 zones. Zone "A" covers the largest area of the table, so naturally it was the
most used zone in all the racks I studied. Part of the study included shot analysis, where
I applied my aiming zone method to each angled shot that occurred in each rack. I did this
to see which, if any, fractional hit was most common. Granted, sometimes the camera angle
didnt allow a good view of the shot, and I couldn't be sure of the angle/fraction. But of all
the shots where I was able to verify the angle, the 1/2 ball (anywhere from about 26 to 32
degrees) was most prevalent. Maybe it's because that's the angle that Earl and Efren would
just naturally prefer when playing position, but I don't believe they do it on purpose...It just
turns out that way. (I chose to study the 1996 Hong Kong challenge)
Most angled shots can be viewed from the 1/2 ball perspective. They are either dead on the
half ball overlap or a little thicker or thinner and can be spun in with english and 1/2 ball aim.
I'm no longer amazed, now that I actually pay attention to the angles, at how often the 1/2
ball shot arises. Ive come to expect it.
determine how often shots come up in each of area on the table that I call Shot Zones.
There are 3 zones. Zone "A" covers the largest area of the table, so naturally it was the
most used zone in all the racks I studied. Part of the study included shot analysis, where
I applied my aiming zone method to each angled shot that occurred in each rack. I did this
to see which, if any, fractional hit was most common. Granted, sometimes the camera angle
didnt allow a good view of the shot, and I couldn't be sure of the angle/fraction. But of all
the shots where I was able to verify the angle, the 1/2 ball (anywhere from about 26 to 32
degrees) was most prevalent. Maybe it's because that's the angle that Earl and Efren would
just naturally prefer when playing position, but I don't believe they do it on purpose...It just
turns out that way. (I chose to study the 1996 Hong Kong challenge)
Most angled shots can be viewed from the 1/2 ball perspective. They are either dead on the
half ball overlap or a little thicker or thinner and can be spun in with english and 1/2 ball aim.
I'm no longer amazed, now that I actually pay attention to the angles, at how often the 1/2
ball shot arises. Ive come to expect it.
Last edited:
GoldenFlash
Banned
The more times the 30 degree half ball hits come up, the better I like it.
It's a shot that is easily defined...and easily hit. The angle of the cue ball after contact can be reasonably predicted as well. When playing safe, the direction of both balls can be pretty accurately predicted
The tricky part is KNOWING whether it's a half ball hit or not.
Using CTE aiming, that's no big deal since there are only 5 shots to mess with anyway.
Straight-in, 15 degree cuts, 30 degree cuts, 45 degree cuts, and 60 degree cuts. These are easy to dial into ("perceive", "recognize", "figure out", whatever word a person wants to use). The CTE alignment process takes care of all that.
Having the skill to actually send the white ball down that shot line and make an accurate connection with any of those shots is another story entirely.
That's where the stroke, stance, hours of practice, nerves, and all the rest come into play....in sending that white ball down the correct predetermined shot line.
Some idiot on here tries to say pool shooting is the same as racing a motorcycle down a road....reacting on instinct, which is ridiculous. Without a defined road to go down in the first place, he ends up in a ditch.
He can try and tell that to pro golfers out on the tour when they're lining up a 20 foot putt. "Just use your instinct....pay no attention to those bumps and drifts in the green" etc. etc.
Lining up pool shots is very similar. The 30 degree half ball hit is our friend.
GoldenFlash
Banned
Your work is good scientific OBJECTIVE analysis.
(most pool players are too lazy, too full of dope or booze, too full of themselves and their puffed up egos, or don't have enough brains in the first place to accomplish something like this)
Well done. :thumbup:
A half ball perspective and hit are not the same thing unless the cue ball travels down the half ball line. I played with your system as described in your other thread and it does appear to be accurate if you can locate the ball positions with precision and figure the overlap/hit ratio correctly. But the perspective and hit have to be identical and the exact half ball hit doesn't come up 50℅ or more per my experience.
A half ball perspective however forms the basis for CTE aiming. Any shot can be approached from that perspective for initiating the alignment and from that perspective the shooter is literally less than a mm away from the actual shot line.
Thus in that sense, every shot is quite literally either a little thinner, or a little thicker, or dead on a half ball hit as seen from the half ball perspective.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Thanks. I've had my share of boozed up pool, enough to learn that It adds a hell of
a lot of wasted $$$ to the cost of experience!
When it comes to fractional ball aiming, most players don't realize that the angles
are approximate, not dead. Due to pocket size, ball and cloth condition, etc..., a 1/2
ball shot could be anywhere between about 25 to 35 degrees. On a computer, or on
paper, a a 1/2 ball shot gives a 30° cut. It hits center hole. In the real world a 1/2
ball aim provides a shot angle closer to 27° or less to hit center hole.
Good thing pockets are twice as wide as pool balls. This allows a little feel to enter
the equation. A 1/4 ball aim can pocket a ball where the shot angle is anywhere within
a few degrees of 45°. All the fractions have this room for playability, which is why
we don't have to carry calculators and protractors in our cue cases.
I tried CTE and found it very effective when the CB is within a couple of feet
of the OB. But I couldn't make it work beyond that, on long shots with distance
between the two balls. I put it on paper and calculated how it works, then I understood
why and was able to manipulate the process for longer shots.
Cool thing about playing pool is that no two players have to follow the same style
or method in order to become a decent player. Do what makes sense, what feels
right in for your own body and mind.
Please share your CTE calculations. There are countless people that would like to see the math of how CTE works.
CTE works all over the table and quite easily FOR SHORT SHOTS AND LONG SHOTS.
I understand about fractions and the adjustments that work because of pocket size. The best thing that I ever did for my son's game was steer him away from fractional guess-work. He subsequently learned CTE and won 7 national championships.
I have no interest at all in debating or being negative toward your work but if you swipe negatively at CTE, my comments are once again fair game.
It seems as though you feel the need to swipe at CTE in order to promote your book.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Fully understand and agree that each person should absolutely use whatever works for them. CTE works at every distance but I certainly understand how someone can have trouble too learn how the perception changes with varying distance. I had the same problem until I asked for some help and Stan explained it to me.
I would be very interested to see what you worked out on paper. I have plotted out shots using Corel Draw in 2d trying to figure out something "mathy" with my dismal math skills even though it's really not needed to use CTE.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Regarding pocket size. It's not wise to depend on pockets being larger than balls to say that an aiming system works because of the margin of error.
The margin of error is decreased significantly as the object ball gets farther from the hole and is extremely dependent on the angle of the pocket sides, the type of shims used, the depth of the shelf and the speed of the object ball.
So the aiming system which is found to be precise at putting the shooter very close to the center pocket line consistently will then increase the chance to make the shot even when stroke errors send the cue ball slightly left or right of the dead center shot line. In other words the more precision that is brought to bear in aiming by the shooter will result in having the widest possible margin available more often.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
I am definitely not taking swipes at CTE. It has a proven track record. Over the last several
years I've seen countless people doing it and was curious how it works. I don't have trouble
pocketing balls so I apologize for not buying any CTE product. But, being curious, as I was
also developing an aiming method, I watched some clips on CTE to get an idea what
all the hype was about. This was several years ago. I tossed a few balls onto the table
and experimented with it.
I was blown away because it really works, and it's accurate. But I noticed it changed on
long shots. So I drew it out on paper and found out why. Then I tried adjusting my initial
line to tweak the method so it would work at longer distances between OB and CB.
Then I figured there was more to it (CTE) than I could pick up from watching free YouTube
clips. But since I had my own project going I moved on to studying fractional ball hits.
So I'm not saying CTE is unworthy of the hype it's received. Like I said, it's been proven
effective for so many players... the proof is out there. Maybe the method I had
to apply on long shots is exactly what the real CTE system uses. Maybe I should purchase
a CTE DVD to satisfy my curiosity.
Rest assured, I will not utter another word about CTE, except to friends of mine
that are searching for a system that doesn't involve having to focus their eyes on far
away aim points.
years I've seen countless people doing it and was curious how it works. I don't have trouble
pocketing balls so I apologize for not buying any CTE product. But, being curious, as I was
also developing an aiming method, I watched some clips on CTE to get an idea what
all the hype was about. This was several years ago. I tossed a few balls onto the table
and experimented with it.
I was blown away because it really works, and it's accurate. But I noticed it changed on
long shots. So I drew it out on paper and found out why. Then I tried adjusting my initial
line to tweak the method so it would work at longer distances between OB and CB.
Then I figured there was more to it (CTE) than I could pick up from watching free YouTube
clips. But since I had my own project going I moved on to studying fractional ball hits.
So I'm not saying CTE is unworthy of the hype it's received. Like I said, it's been proven
effective for so many players... the proof is out there. Maybe the method I had
to apply on long shots is exactly what the real CTE system uses. Maybe I should purchase
a CTE DVD to satisfy my curiosity.
Rest assured, I will not utter another word about CTE, except to friends of mine
that are searching for a system that doesn't involve having to focus their eyes on far
away aim points.
Last edited:
Two comments:
A purchase is not required as I will be producing a free online nuts and bolts series of EXACTLY how CTE works.
CTE is almost the same as what any proficient feel player is already doing. The difference is slight and mostly about understanding vision. The slight difference lies in the HOW of using vision which leads to an objective bridge V placement that is minutely in the overcut position.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
I don't see shots that way. I honestly don't even think about angles in that way. My one roadmap is the line from the OB to the pocket, and that gives me all the information I know. To set myself up for the next shot, the CB should be on the opposite side of the OB line that my CB destination is. Then depending on the distance the CB has to travel will determine how thin or thick I want to hit the OB. Otherwise, I'll have to force the CB to the next position, and it's usually when I try to stroke the CB that I get the pocket jiggles.
In short, I have already pre-determined the angle I WANT to hit the OB, to do what I want it to do. In fact, for 9-ball, I try to work backwards from the 9 BEFORE I even shoot the lowest ball, and that is what gives me the "road map." The pros do this so fast, because they've seen a million racks. Just the same I try to CREATE the angles I need to get from one point to another - I've already pre-determined the angles, based on my comfort level what I can do. I don't always end up right, and have to stroke the CB to next spot, and that's where I run into problems. And I love to spin it, but it's always better and more accurate to position without spin if possible. If you just go from shot to shot, trying to determine each angle as you go along, you're just hacking.