The folly of proving CTE

[nobcitypool]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. As a recent video where a head cam was used illustrated, you cannot grasp the CTE visuals in a single dimension. The visuals are the key element in CTE is those visuals. If the math fails to account for those visuals, it hasn't proven, or disputed, anything. Mathematically modeling the eyes will be a formidable task.

I do agree with another statement of Sean's that 75% of shots (or something in that ballpark) are missed due to stroke errors. I was watching a Mosconi Cup match between Hatch and the Greek Guy (Greek Guy easier than to spell his name - LOL). I saw Hatch miss a relatively easy shot with a stroke error. I think he was trying to use swipe action to create inside english for CB position. That still qualifies as a stroke error. I'll bet if he weren't concerned with CB position, he would have made that shot 99 or 100 out of 100 times. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt though. Who knows, due to the pressure, perhaps he actually felt like he was missing it and tried to steer at the last millisecond.

Whether he's able to come up with the math, Sean should be able to learn CTE/Pro One and gain an understanding of why the advocates believe in the effectiveness of the system. I hope he's able to come up with the mathematical proof but as I've stated, I have my doubts due to the overwhelming complexity involved. Until he's published his findings, we'll have to agree to disagree ( I suppose) on the complexity (or lack thereof) of the math involved.

 

[336Robin]

Math Proof?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. As a recent video where a head cam was used illustrated, you cannot grasp the CTE visuals in a single dimension. The visuals are the key element in CTE is those visuals. If the math fails to account for those visuals, it hasn't proven, or disputed, anything. Mathematically modeling the eyes will be a formidable task.

I do agree with another statement of Sean's that 75% of shots (or something in that ballpark) are missed due to stroke errors. I was watching a Mosconi Cup match between Hatch and the Greek Guy (Greek Guy easier than to spell his name - LOL). I saw Hatch miss a relatively easy shot with a stroke error. I think he was trying to use swipe action to create inside english for CB position. That still qualifies as a stroke error. I'll bet if he weren't concerned with CB position, he would have made that shot 99 or 100 out of 100 times. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt though. Who knows, due to the pressure, perhaps he actually felt like he was missing it and tried to steer at the last millisecond.

Whether he's able to come up with the math, Sean should be able to learn CTE/Pro One and gain an understanding of why the advocates believe in the effectiveness of the system. I hope he's able to come up with the mathematical proof but as I've stated, I have my doubts due to the overwhelming complexity involved. Until he's published his findings, we'll have to agree to disagree ( I suppose) on the complexity (or lack thereof) of the math involved.

Its been awhile since I;ve been here but I saw Sean's comments and looked. His post seemed more like an attack than anything else. CTE makes shots and so do other systems and methods so proving them sounds like its something more geometric than mathematical.

Math is what it is and no to people are going to play alike but I think a baseline could be found for individual players.

Who is to say what is correct? As long as a ball is pocketed is that not the result wanted? Other than that you are going to have a variety of shots that is nearly endless with a variety of departing angles all of course for different starting points on the object ball.

I can see each of those starting points being a value or similar starting point and then each type of adjustment from each equaling a certain angle if all angles adjusted to were equal from similar starting points that would be a similarity but correct or incorrect I'm not sure is provable. I see that geometrically consistent results may be found as to angles of departure off of the direct line of the shot but math......I doubt.

I also don't see that there is anyway to disprove CTE and proving CTE only proves every other system including contact patch however the likely hood of finding a shot solution between the systems might in some way be measurable but then again you have to factor in individual skill and familiarity which will be hard to do. In my opinion of course.

 

[nobcitypool]

Its been awhile since I;ve been here but I saw Sean's comments and looked. His post seemed more like an attack than anything else. CTE makes shots and so do other systems and methods so proving them sounds like its something more geometric than mathematical.

Geometry is math.

Math is what it is and no to people are going to play alike but I think a baseline could be found for individual players.

I think the problem is the use of the word perceptions. I liked when Stan used "visuals" instead of "perceptions". Perception by definition is subjective. This leads people to think there is some subjective, personal adjustment used with the visual to achieve the aim line. This simply isn't the case. While people may use different approaches for obtaining the "perception" (left eye, right eye, both eyes), the relationship of the perception to the aim line is always the same.

Who is to say what is correct? As long as a ball is pocketed is that not the result wanted? Other than that you are going to have a variety of shots that is nearly endless with a variety of departing angles all of course for different starting points on the object ball.

Truer words were never spoken.

I can see each of those starting points being a value or similar starting point and then each type of adjustment from each equaling a certain angle if all angles adjusted to were equal from similar starting points that would be a similarity but correct or incorrect I'm not sure is provable. I see that geometrically consistent results may be found as to angles of departure off of the direct line of the shot but math......I doubt.

I have no idea what you said there. LOL

I also don't see that there is anyway to disprove CTE and proving CTE only proves every other system including contact patch however the likely hood of finding a shot solution between the systems might in some way be measurable but then again you have to factor in individual skill and familiarity which will be hard to do. In my opinion of course.

If the math were correct and complete, proof or disprove are one and the same. In other words, the math would prove the system works and is geometrically connected to the table ... or vice versa. As far as proving CTE with math, individual skill has nothing to do with it. Assuming the mathematical proof is correctly published, it doesn't factor in any skill factor. It is the math of the system, not the user.

Response in red.

 

[336Robin]

The Provable Pivot

Response in red.

I would believe that the proof would rest in the pivot. If all pivots are the same and the angles acquired are the same for the individual starting points I think that it would be easy to say that the cte is geometrically connected to the table using geometry. That would prove that it is consistent off each starting point.

If visuals are required when pivoting I'm not sure that would apply.

 

[sfleinen]

Its been awhile since I;ve been here but I saw Sean's comments and looked. His post seemed more like an attack than anything else. [...]

No, Robin, it was more a defense. I did take the timing of IAmCalvin's thread to be curiously following on the heels of the timing of my effort, so yes, I did take his thread as calling my effort a "folly." He explained that it wasn't, so all's good on my end.

Might want to send the boxing round placard girl home -- there's no fight here. AZB doesn't even have an "on-demand" fight channel (that I'm aware of, anyway), although fights erupt with regularity here in the aiming section.

-Sean

 

[nobcitypool]

I would believe that the proof would rest in the pivot. If all pivots are the same and the angles acquired are the same for the individual starting points I think that it would be easy to say that the cte is geometrically connected to the table using geometry. That would prove that it is consistent off each starting point.

If visuals are required when pivoting I'm not sure that would apply.

The visuals occur before you get to the pivot. I must be missing something, what is the magic in a half tip pivot? That is reasonably objective. That is what I keep saying. The aim line is a geometric given. The pivot is, or should be a given. Nothing to prove geometrically/mathematically with those two things. It's how you get the V of your bridge (the pivot point) to the correct location that is at the core of CTE. That is the part that will be very challenging to model mathematically.

 

[336Robin]

Do they change?

The visuals occur before you get to the pivot. I must be missing something, what is the magic in a half tip pivot? That is reasonably objective. That is what I keep saying. The aim line is a geometric given. The pivot is, or should be a given. Nothing to prove geometrically/mathematically with those two things. It's how you get the V of your bridge (the pivot point) to the correct location that is at the core of CTE. That is the part that will be very challenging to model mathematically.

Just asking but do pivot points change as per the distance from the cue ball depending on the shot?

 

[nobcitypool]

Just asking but do pivot points change as per the distance from the cue ball depending on the shot?

I think I answered this in the other thread several times and Stan certainly has covered it many times.

With CTE, the pivot distance is important and must be adjusted when the distance between the CB and OB is 12.5" or less. When the distance is 12.5" or more, I believe Stan states a bridge length of 8" to 12" works fine. If I had to wager a guess, I suspect there is a "perfect" bridge length as the CB to OB distance varies. However, the impact is miniscule. The reason for this is, prior to planting your bridge hand, the cue should be 1/2 tip right or left of the perception line. You slide your bridge hand from front to back, along this line, until you reach your desired bridge length. This line is NOT parallel to the aim line and therefore has a built in compensation for the difference in bridge length.

I honestly don't know if modifications needs to be made if your standard bridge length is outside the norm. Clearly, there are people who may like a 5 or 6" bridge or a 15" bridge. Stan would need to answer that. Were I to speculate, I would guess someone with a really short bridge might have to adjust more than someone with a really long bridge.

In Pro One, the bridge length is irrelevant as there is no manual pivot. The shooter is essentially making an air pivot and setting up on the aim line afterwards. That's why Stan emphasizes, for Pro One, that the eyes lead and the cue follows. One of the surest ways to screw up Pro One is to lead in with the cue prior to establishing the aim line with your eyes.

 

[336Robin]

I think I answered this in the other thread several times and Stan certainly has covered it many times.

With CTE, the pivot distance is important and must be adjusted when the distance between the CB and OB is 12.5" or less. When the distance is 12.5" or more, I believe Stan states a bridge length of 8" to 12" works fine. If I had to wager a guess, I suspect there is a "perfect" bridge length as the CB to OB distance varies. However, the impact is miniscule. The reason for this is, prior to planting your bridge hand, the cue should be 1/2 tip right or left of the perception line. You slide your bridge hand from front to back, along this line, until you reach your desired bridge length. This line is NOT parallel to the aim line and therefore has a built in compensation for the difference in bridge length.

I honestly don't know if modifications needs to be made if your standard bridge length is outside the norm. Clearly, there are people who may like a 5 or 6" bridge or a 15" bridge. Stan would need to answer that. Were I to speculate, I would guess someone with a really short bridge might have to adjust more than someone with a really long bridge.

In Pro One, the bridge length is irrelevant as there is no manual pivot. The shooter is essentially making an air pivot and setting up on the aim line afterwards. That's why Stan emphasizes, for Pro One, that the eyes lead and the cue follows. One of the surest ways to screw up Pro One is to lead in with the cue prior to establishing the aim line with your eyes.

Thank you for the answer I understand.

 

[scottjen26]

I’ve not been as active on the site recently, but saw this thread and wanted to comment for what it’s worth… will probably regret it…  A long post, sorry, hard to put all the thoughts out there more succinctly…

Speaking for me personally, I’ve been interested in exploring the math/geometry behind the aiming systems. I’ve been studying them since 2011 and am among a very small group of people who have studied and used most of the main systems (CTE/Pro One, 90/90, SEE, etc.) in competitive play during this time frame. I’ve seen the many similarities between the approaches, even almost identical initial positions in some cases, and the various ways to perform manual and “air” pivots. I’ve studied the pros and cons of each and have come up with something that I think works quite well for me.

Does the math matter? Maybe not. Is there math? Maybe not. Does it invalidate the system if there is no math? In my opinion, no. It can still be a system (or call it an approach, technique, etc.) designed around a series of steps that are executed in a sequential and consistent manner.

The mystery for me is any possible math/geometry behind the idea of aligning to a line that is not the true aim line, yet identical for a range of angles, and then getting to the true aim line through a pivot or sweeping action that somehow varies by the exact amount needed. Logically, this doesn’t make sense to someone like me. I’ve seen some of the materials talking about the connection to the table, yet none of that has truly revealed any secrets as to exactly how, especially when the same alignment technique can be used for such a wide range of shot angles. In other systems, the alignment changes are based on a defined shot angle boundary, not perception - that makes more logical sense to me, yet still requires visualization or confirmation of the shot angle so the correct alignment can be chosen accurately, as well as a precisely executed pivot. It’s possible the steps used to execute the pivot help vary the extent of the pivot based on some connection between the ball, pocket, certain lines, etc., and maybe there is some math to that, but none that I can perceive.

Based on what I’ve seen with my students, most can accurately align to the shot once they learn to pick the correct alignment. Inconsistency issues seem to arise from the pivot, especially any sort of air pivot. The pivot must be understood and learned to be repeatable, there aren’t typically any concrete references when stepping into or leaning down to the shot. That’s the hard part for most people. The manual pivot looks to address this, but requires specific bridge lengths and steps to work as well, and many people find it less natural to use in competition, more of something to be used when learning and to confirm shots later on.


My take on all of this, until proven wrong – these systems look to approach aiming in a different way, and are remarkably accurate in doing so, even if there ends up being no pure math behind it. The alignments are very consistent and allow us to feel as if we are shooting the same 2 or 3 shots over and over – align from this point to that point, step, pivot, shoot. For those who use the systems, the confidence gained from this simplified alignment process is huge, and it can be a great help to incorporate into and build a strong PSR.

With traditional aiming – ghost ball or contact point type aiming – you must develop a good sense of “seeing” the ghost ball itself, ghost ball center, contact point, back of ball, etc. (Ignore for now the issues with friction etc., hopefully we can all agree that there is one theoretical contact point or GB location for a pure center pocket hit, and then a slight range of contact points based on distance and angle to the pocket.) Certainly over time through repetition and visual feedback we build up a great mental shot catalog and get good at envisioning and estimating those spots. However, these ghost ball spots or contact points are in no way objective in the real world – on paper, yes, but on a table, we have to estimate where they are and align to them. There is nothing wrong with that, and we get good over time at doing these types of estimations. But for some, this type of eye/hand coordination or visualization can be difficult, hence the holy grail search for another approach. Aiming systems look to solve this problem by aligning to objective or pseudo-objective points and to add consistency to those alignments, yet I believe there is still some fuzziness with the pivot approach. It works, yet for some people it’s not as natural to come into the shot on anything other than a perceived straight line, and the lack of visual references and mystery surrounding figuring out the steps and nuances throws some people as well.

I’m sure the search will continue and the threads and debates will thrive as well. Will be interesting to look back 2 or 5 or 10 years from now and see where it all ends up.
Scott

 

[336Robin]

Interesting Comments

I’ve not been as active on the site recently, but saw this thread and wanted to comment for what it’s worth… will probably regret it…  A long post, sorry, hard to put all the thoughts out there more succinctly…

Speaking for me personally, I’ve been interested in exploring the math/geometry behind the aiming systems. I’ve been studying them since 2011 and am among a very small group of people who have studied and used most of the main systems (CTE/Pro One, 90/90, SEE, etc.) in competitive play during this time frame. I’ve seen the many similarities between the approaches, even almost identical initial positions in some cases, and the various ways to perform manual and “air” pivots. I’ve studied the pros and cons of each and have come up with something that I think works quite well for me.

Does the math matter? Maybe not. Is there math? Maybe not. Does it invalidate the system if there is no math? In my opinion, no. It can still be a system (or call it an approach, technique, etc.) designed around a series of steps that are executed in a sequential and consistent manner.

The mystery for me is any possible math/geometry behind the idea of aligning to a line that is not the true aim line, yet identical for a range of angles, and then getting to the true aim line through a pivot or sweeping action that somehow varies by the exact amount needed. Logically, this doesn’t make sense to someone like me. I’ve seen some of the materials talking about the connection to the table, yet none of that has truly revealed any secrets as to exactly how, especially when the same alignment technique can be used for such a wide range of shot angles. In other systems, the alignment changes are based on a defined shot angle boundary, not perception - that makes more logical sense to me, yet still requires visualization or confirmation of the shot angle so the correct alignment can be chosen accurately, as well as a precisely executed pivot. It’s possible the steps used to execute the pivot help vary the extent of the pivot based on some connection between the ball, pocket, certain lines, etc., and maybe there is some math to that, but none that I can perceive.

Based on what I’ve seen with my students, most can accurately align to the shot once they learn to pick the correct alignment. Inconsistency issues seem to arise from the pivot, especially any sort of air pivot. The pivot must be understood and learned to be repeatable, there aren’t typically any concrete references when stepping into or leaning down to the shot. That’s the hard part for most people. The manual pivot looks to address this, but requires specific bridge lengths and steps to work as well, and many people find it less natural to use in competition, more of something to be used when learning and to confirm shots later on.


My take on all of this, until proven wrong – these systems look to approach aiming in a different way, and are remarkably accurate in doing so, even if there ends up being no pure math behind it. The alignments are very consistent and allow us to feel as if we are shooting the same 2 or 3 shots over and over – align from this point to that point, step, pivot, shoot. For those who use the systems, the confidence gained from this simplified alignment process is huge, and it can be a great help to incorporate into and build a strong PSR.

With traditional aiming – ghost ball or contact point type aiming – you must develop a good sense of “seeing” the ghost ball itself, ghost ball center, contact point, back of ball, etc. (Ignore for now the issues with friction etc., hopefully we can all agree that there is one theoretical contact point or GB location for a pure center pocket hit, and then a slight range of contact points based on distance and angle to the pocket.) Certainly over time through repetition and visual feedback we build up a great mental shot catalog and get good at envisioning and estimating those spots. However, these ghost ball spots or contact points are in no way objective in the real world – on paper, yes, but on a table, we have to estimate where they are and align to them. There is nothing wrong with that, and we get good over time at doing these types of estimations. But for some, this type of eye/hand coordination or visualization can be difficult, hence the holy grail search for another approach. Aiming systems look to solve this problem by aligning to objective or pseudo-objective points and to add consistency to those alignments, yet I believe there is still some fuzziness with the pivot approach. It works, yet for some people it’s not as natural to come into the shot on anything other than a perceived straight line, and the lack of visual references and mystery surrounding figuring out the steps and nuances throws some people as well.

I’m sure the search will continue and the threads and debates will thrive as well. Will be interesting to look back 2 or 5 or 10 years from now and see where it all ends up.
Scott

Those are some really interesting comments Scott. Yeah things are going to continue to change in the aiming scenario. From CTE came Pro One and things go on from there. Nice post and rep to you for such an introspective view on aiming. Thank you for sharing your comments.

 

[Ratta]

I have a friend that is blind in one eye and shoots lights out. Are two eyes required to aquire the two different alignment lines?

It s all about "his personal perception"-- and everyone has a perception no matter with two eyes or one eye. You *train your brain* nonstop- and the arm-eye-and brain computer needs loooooots of input . And the more often you *see something*, the more often you will also get references for you (and so the brain/eye relationship, too).
And this fact will be correct for every system you will use--- may it be *ghostball*, *contact to contact* or pivot based systems (pro1, 90/90, manual cte) and so on.

If you re born with this a handicap like this, you will have no problem the rest of your life- - just the 3d effect is not *there* for the most. (also my problem- like niels on one eye just very few percent eye-sight).

no matter which system you use- YOU have to get used to it. it s that easy....and also that tough

 

[stan shuffett]

It s all about "his personal perception"-- and everyone has a perception no matter with two eyes or one eye. You *train your brain* nonstop- and the arm-eye-and brain computer needs loooooots of input . And the more often you *see something*, the more often you will also get references for you (and so the brain/eye relationship, too).
And this fact will be correct for every system you will use--- may it be *ghostball*, *contact to contact* or pivot based systems (pro1, 90/90, manual cte) and so on.

If you re born with this a handicap like this, you will have no problem the rest of your life- - just the 3d effect is not *there* for the most. (also my problem- like niels on one eye just very few percent eye-sight).

no matter which system you use- YOU have to get used to it. it s that easy....and also that tough

Personal Perception----misleading

We all function under the same visual rules. The way we construct what we see is the same from person to person.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Ratta]

Personal Perception----misleading

We all function under the same visual rules. The way we construct what we see is the same from person to person.

Stan Shuffett

thank you stan. understand what you re saying. and it seems that i wasn t really able to describe what i wanted to "explain"

thx again stan ! hope you re doin well

 

[stan shuffett]

thank you stan. understand what you re saying. and it seems that i wasn t really able to describe what i wanted to "explain"

thx again stan ! hope you re doin well

No problem .

That is why CTE PRO ONE can work objectively from person to person.

Stan Shuffett

 

[GoldenFlash]

Is it really THIS easy?

Personal Perception----misleading
We all function under the same visual rules. The way we construct what we see is the same from person to person.
Stan Shuffett

Mr. Shuffett.
I bought all your videos and I study some aspect of them just about every day. To me, it is fun to study and learn new stuff….and then see it work out. (and remember, I am a 75 year old man…who still doesn’t need glasses..had a full exam from the opthamologist last week)
Something is happening that I’m not sure I understand. Maybe a comment from you here would be enlightening to me as well as to those who haven’t bought the DVD’s without you revealing stuff they should pay to acquire.
I am, after maybe 6-8 weeks, becoming very proficient at calculating those perceptions. It’s a lead pipe cinch for me on the 15, 30, (the 45 can be tricky at times).
My question is this.
I am making no conscious effort to transfer or “do anything” from the perception line down into the position for the shot line.
I get the perception and then it seems, all of a sudden, that all I have to do is come down into shooting stance in a little ‘sweep’, aim with a center, low, or high cueball hit…right at the appropriate edge of the object ball, pull the trigger, and the object ball goes in the pocket. This is concerning me because it all “seems so simple”. Is it supposed to be THAT easy???
The only times I miss many shots on those 15 and 30 perceptions is if , after I am ready to pull the trigger, that “little voice inside” starts saying……."That doesn’t look right, I don’t really think the edge of that OB is the place to fire at". When there is the slightest doubt and I yield to the doubt….the ball will rattle in the pocket or undercut.
I never ran over 50 balls in my life in straight pool and now I am hitting 70’s and 80’s thanks to this procedure of yours. My position play is now a little suspect without using spin all over the cueball but I’m working on that. (I can get back in line pretty quickly)
Comments please about the “is it that easy”…???

 

[stan shuffett]

Mr. Shuffett.
I bought all your videos and I study some aspect of them just about every day. To me, it is fun to study and learn new stuff….and then see it work out. (and remember, I am a 75 year old man…who still doesn’t need glasses..had a full exam from the opthamologist last week)
Something is happening that I’m not sure I understand. Maybe a comment from you here would be enlightening to me as well as to those who haven’t bought the DVD’s without you revealing stuff they should pay to acquire.
I am, after maybe 6-8 weeks, becoming very proficient at calculating those perceptions. It’s a lead pipe cinch for me on the 15, 30, (the 45 can be tricky at times).
My question is this.
I am making no conscious effort to transfer or “do anything” from the perception line down into the position for the shot line.
I get the perception and then it seems, all of a sudden, that all I have to do is come down into shooting stance in a little ‘sweep’, aim with a center, low, or high cueball hit…right at the appropriate edge of the object ball, pull the trigger, and the object ball goes in the pocket. This is concerning me because it all “seems so simple”. Is it supposed to be THAT easy???
The only times I miss many shots on those 15 and 30 perceptions is if , after I am ready to pull the trigger, that “little voice inside” starts saying……."That doesn’t look right, I don’t really think the edge of that OB is the place to fire at". When there is the slightest doubt and I yield to the doubt….the ball will rattle in the pocket or undercut.
I never ran over 50 balls in my life in straight pool and now I am hitting 70’s and 80’s thanks to this procedure of yours. My position play is now a little suspect without using spin all over the cueball but I’m working on that. (I can get back in line pretty quickly)
Comments please about the “is it that easy”…???

Golden Flash,
It really is that easy! The sweep aspect of CTE PRO ONE is simply see your visuals and sweep left or right to CCB and shoot. At ball address your eyes are very close to the shot line....1/2 of a tip away..... The sweeps are natural and that is precisely why it seems so effortless.
There are some that just cannot get away from over analyzing the process. CTE PRO ONE represents a very natural visual/physical connection to a regulation table. My full circle videos on YOUTUBE represent something that is well beyond what the pros are typically doing.
Stan Shuffett

 

[GoldenFlash]

Golden Flash,
It really is that easy! The sweep aspect of CTE PRO ONE is simply see your visuals and sweep left or right to CCB and shoot. At ball address your eyes are very close to the shot line....1/2 of a tip away..... The sweeps are natural and that is precisely why it seems so effortless.
There are some that just cannot get away from over analyzing the process.[/QUOTE]

Thank uuuuuuuuuuuuu...now on to more high runs for this old guy.
Your comment about those types (I highlighted in blue) reminds me of that old line about the guys "who know 237 ways to have sex, but they can't get a date".
:smile::smile::smile: