The Simplest Aiming Systems to Visualize and Use

[BC21]

Aiming is a notoriously personal and cerebral thing - how our mind does it, particularly the role played by our subconscious, can be a tricky thing to know. Who wouldn't like to have a way to aim without feel? Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that's logically impossible - too many defined solutions needed to be practical (not to mention the need to recognize the right one) - but we're predisposed to believe it, and our subconscious assistant can make it seem that way in practice.

pj
chgo

Yes, every task that involves our senses is a joint effort between conscious and subconscious thought.

Consciously, a tennis player watches the shoulder and racquet of the server. The visuals trigger the subconscious to provide ball flight information to the working area of the mind. The information may or may not be accurate. It gets analyzed, consciously, in the working area and either gets rejected or accepted. If accepted, the body automatically starts moving in accordance with the subconcious instruction/data.
If rejected, the subconscious immediately offers up another solution. And this all happens within a few nanoseconds.

Too many times I've been watching a movie or tv show and say, "That lady looks like the lady that plays in...", and my daughter will say, "That's not her." Then she'll bring up an image of the lady in question to prove that I am wrong. As soon as I see the image I know I am wrong. But my mind had me convinced, briefly, that I was right.

The visual of the lady's face on the tv triggered my subconscious to bring the wrong woman's face into the working area of my mind. It was a close match, but it was wrong. And as soon as I saw the face of the actual woman I was thinking of, my subconscious submitted the appropriate data.

We see something, hear something, smell something, whatever... and the subconscious automatically submits data to the working area of the mind. Then we consciously decide whether or not this data matches or pertains to what we're seeing or hearing or smelling. Sometimes the subconscious is dead on, and sometimes it's not.
Sometimes our conscious analysis is dead on, but other times it's not.

This entire process is what I would call "feel". We can feel like what we're seeing is exactly in tune with the data our subconscious memory is providing, but that doesn't mean it's actually in tune. Most of the time, as long as there are no distractions cluttering up the working area of the mind, what we feel is "in tune" is in fact "in tune". When we're distracted it's easy to make the mistake of feeling like something is dead on when it's really not.

 

[Dan White]

Impossible to do because he insists on having his vision on the shot line, which is why he misses shots with it.

Not true.

The pivot takes the vision away from being directly over the shot line, which is how you are able to shoot different angles from the same perception. As distance from the object ball changes, so changes the amount of pivot to CCB.

That's what many of us have been saying for years. The varying pivot is what allows you to pocket balls. The amount that you vary depends on where the pocket is relative to the balls.

That obviously changes the point of contact along the NISL, which in turn results in a different angle after contact. As per Hal Houle, CTE DOES NOT work with the vision center directly over the actual shot line, or NISL as Stan describes it. These guys want to act like it's supposed to be some magical event that Stan claims makes the ball.

We only think that because that is what Stan has been claiming.

It's not, every combination of perception, left or right cut, sweep or pivot direction, etc,,,, will result in the same angle of cut after contact, regardless if the target is a pocket, a combination, a point on a rail for banking, or even a carom shot. The trick is to fit that combination to the location of the balls on the table in reference to the target and the distance between those balls and that target. Those variables will repeat anywhere on the table as long as none of them move on the table, and, as accurately as the user can do the alignments and stroke the shot, which is a consideration with any method of aiming.

If Stan were still in this forum you'd get a good old fashioned bitch slapping for saying that. I've seen him do it before. I don't know what all that is but it didn't come from Stan. It does make a little more sense than what Stan says.

 

[Dan White]

Yes, every task that involves our senses is a joint effort between conscious and subconscious thought.

Consciously, a tennis player watches the shoulder and racquet of the server. The visuals trigger the subconscious to provide ball flight information to the working area of the mind. The information may or may not be accurate. It gets analyzed, consciously, in the working area and either gets rejected or accepted. If accepted, the body automatically starts moving in accordance with the subconcious instruction/data.
If rejected, the subconscious immediately offers up another solution. And this all happens within a few nanoseconds.

Too many times I've been watching a movie or tv show and say, "That lady looks like the lady that plays in...", and my daughter will say, "That's not her." Then she'll bring up an image of the lady in question to prove that I am wrong. As soon as I see the image I know I am wrong. But my mind had me convinced, briefly, that I was right.

The visual of the lady's face on the tv triggered my subconscious to bring the wrong woman's face into the working area of my mind. It was a close match, but it was wrong. And as soon as I saw the face of the actual woman I was thinking of, my subconscious submitted the appropriate data.

We see something, hear something, smell something, whatever... and the subconscious automatically submits data to the working area of the mind. Then we consciously decide whether or not this data matches or pertains to what we're seeing or hearing or smelling. Sometimes the subconscious is dead on, and sometimes it's not.
Sometimes our conscious analysis is dead on, but other times it's not.

This entire process is what I would call "feel". We can feel like what we're seeing is exactly in tune with the data our subconscious memory is providing, but that doesn't mean it's actually in tune. Most of the time, as long as there are no distractions cluttering up the working area of the mind, what we feel is "in tune" is in fact "in tune". When we're distracted it's easy to make the mistake of feeling like something is dead on when it's really not.

This is all very interesting. What I find fascinating is when I'm trying to remember something like, say, who played a part in some movie years ago. I usually know right away whether I have any chance of remembering it. Some facts you just don't know and it seems like the brain knows this. If I think I might remember the name sometimes it comes very soon and other times it takes a long time. On more than one occasion I couldn't remember the name but when I went to bed that name popped into my head as my first thought. How cool is that?

 

[bbb]

it really is all about how you perceive things

 

[bbb]

2 faces or a vase?
saxahone player or young woman ?

2

 

[bbb]

same "picture"
different cuts?

 

[BC21]

same "picture"
different cuts?

Subconsciously the mind likes to make sense of things, so it will quickly offer up whatever solution it can to make sense of what we're seeing. We decide, consciously, whether or not the solution brought forth looks like a good match. We either feel like it matches or we don't.

If it's a close enough match for success, based on our experience, then we pull the trigger on the shot. But if something feels off, not quite a perfect or even good match, we look at the shot again, maybe a little longer, maybe from a different perspective, and the subconscious provides another solution, hopefully one that earns our conscious agreement or approval.

To me, this process is what should be considered "feel" when it comes to playing pool. It's no different than fixing the sights of a gun or a bow on a target. It's only dead on when you know it's dead on, and even then it might not be as dead as you think. But you "feel" like it is, and that's the best you can do.

 

[Dan White]

This is all very interesting. What I find fascinating is when I'm trying to remember something like, say, who played a part in some movie years ago. I usually know right away whether I have any chance of remembering it. Some facts you just don't know and it seems like the brain knows this. If I think I might remember the name sometimes it comes very soon and other times it takes a long time. On more than one occasion I couldn't remember the name but when I went to bed that name popped into my head as my first thought when I woke up in the morning. How cool is that?

 

[Dan White]

Here's my short video requested by Spider. I'm only hitting shots that look like they are in the general vicinity of a half ball hit. I am hunched over looking for the cb edge to ob center and vice versa lines, which I think I found within reason. I will withhold any comments and allow Spider to do what he wants to do with this process. One thing I will say is I do not need 13 hours of practicing like this to get it. Much as you guys say I have never used CTE I have used the basic CTE (which did not talk about pivoting your head to see both lines afaik) plenty enough to kind of have it down. I feel now like I have no problem seeing both references at the same time, although it is more vague at longer distances.

Excuse the clutter... still renovating the garage... and I need a haircut.

 

[Renegade_56]

Here's my short video requested by Spider. I'm only hitting shots that look like they are in the general vicinity of a half ball hit. I am hunched over looking for the cb edge to ob center and vice versa lines, which I think I found within reason. I will withhold any comments and allow Spider to do what he wants to do with this process. One thing I will say is I do not need 13 hours of practicing like this to get it. Much as you guys say I have never used CTE I have used the basic CTE (which did not talk about pivoting your head to see both lines afaik) plenty enough to kind of have it down. I feel now like I have no problem seeing both references at the same time, although it is more vague at longer distances.

Excuse the clutter... still renovating the garage... and I need a haircut.

I'm not sure if I said you never used CTE. I will say in this video you didn't do any of it correctly. Nottabit!

 

[Dan White]

I'm not sure if I said you never used CTE. I will say in this video you didn't do any of it correctly. Nottabit!

I'll be polite and let Spider respond to your comment.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Here's my short video requested by Spider. I'm only hitting shots that look like they are in the general vicinity of a half ball hit. I am hunched over looking for the cb edge to ob center and vice versa lines, which I think I found within reason.

Don't let what you think is a half ball hit be the determining factor on taking the shot or not. It really isn't a half ball HIT. You can't worry about the hit. It's the alignment of the edge and the center of the CB to the OB. You really don't want to look for it hunched over. Get your visuals standing up and then move down into the shot. You head or eyeline should never be inside of the cue. I think one of the things screwing me up with seeing you shooting is you're a lefty and I can't relate to it. Actually, Stan talks about that in one of his Truth Series videos

You made some decent shots and missed some by more than you should have, and I don't know if the angle to the pocket just didn't show up on the video as you were seeing it, or I was seeing it. Which means you may have been better off using the 15 instead of the 30. The ones you did miss were two ways. Overcuts and undercuts. You do have a pretty decent stroke so that will always serve you well.

What I want to know is what do YOU think? What seemed to give you a problem here and there with the misses and what did you see on the money for the shots you made?

We did this kind of willy nilly on shot choices and assigned the 30 to all of them when some in fact weren't, but that's OK for now.

Do you think it was difficult to see CB edge to center of OB and CB center to edge of OB simultaneously?
There are a number of shots that would appear to be either an undercut lining up center to edge and edge to center of OB or an overcut but go dead into the pocket once you get the alignments down pat and comfortable with it.

I will withhold any comments and allow Spider to do what he wants to do with this process. One thing I will say is I do not need 13 hours of practicing like this to get it. Much as you guys say I have never used CTE I have used the basic CTE (which did not talk about pivoting your head to see both lines afaik) plenty enough to kind of have it down. I feel now like I have no problem seeing both references at the same time, although it is more vague at longer distances.

Hal's original CTE had a single half ball alignment between CB and OB, not two. I don't know how much time or sessions you had on the phone with him but there was a lot more going on with the cue/tip alignment and then the PIVOT. The pivot took on more importance as time went on.

 

[Dan White]

Don't let what you think is a half ball hit be the determining factor on taking the shot or not. It really isn't a half ball HIT. You can't worry about the hit. It's the alignment of the edge and the center of the CB to the OB. You really don't want to look for it hunched over. Get your visuals standing up and then move down into the shot.

I know the shot is roughly half ball so I didn't bother with shots that clearly wouldn't go. I was hunched over because I was trying to see both balls closer together so I could find the two alignments. After I was satisfied that I was in the right place I looked at the cb only and purposefully ignored the pocket. I don't want the pocket to influence my stroke direction. I'll try to get them standing up but I recall that Stan was kind of bent over while doing this as well.

You head or eyeline should never be inside of the cue.

Not sure what that means. After I found the alignment I simply lined up the cue to ccb in a direction that felt comfortable, without thinking about it.

You made some decent shots and missed some by more than you should have, and I don't know if the angle to the pocket just didn't show up on the video as you were seeing it, or I was seeing it. Which means you may have been better off using the 15 instead of the 30 (half). The ones you did miss were two ways. Overcuts and undercuts. You do have a pretty decent stroke so that will always serve you well.

Those were my first shots in two days and I tend to be a little jittery first thing in the morning, but I think the delivery was good enough for this experiment.

What I want to know is what do YOU think? What seemed to give you a problem here and there with the misses and what did you see on the money for the shots you made?

Well, it's kind of like I said before. This didn't feel any different than if I had simply aimed everything at half ball hit. This was a little off from that but not much. The ones that worked were on that cut angle and the others weren't. I wasn't trying to make any of the shots, just pick ones that were in the neighborhood of that cut angle. I know you don't like cut angles but I don't know how else to explain it. I'm pretty sure that if you told me to pivot the cue as needed to make the shot that I'd come very close on all shots.

We did this kind of willy nilly on shot choices and assigned the 30 to all of them when some in fact weren't, but that's OK for now.

Do you think it was difficult to see CB edge to center of OB and CB center to edge of OB simultaneously?

I think it is doable and not that hard once you figure it out. I think doing it on long shots is very difficult. The ob is small and so it's hard to line up.

Hal's original CTE had a single half ball alignment between CB and OB, not two. I don't know how much time or sessions you had on the phone with him but there was a lot more going on with the cue/tip alignment and then the PIVOT. The pivot took on more importance as time went on.

I learned the basics from Hal but that's about it. It appeared to me that balls were pocketed by pivoting as needed. You say otherwise so I'm game to go a step at a time and see what happens.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I know the shot is roughly half ball so I didn't bother with shots that clearly wouldn't go. I was hunched over because I was trying to see both balls closer together so I could find the two alignments.

Start off in a standing position for both of them and then go down and recheck once you're down.

After I was satisfied that I was in the right place I looked at the cb only and purposefully ignored the pocket. I don't want the pocket to influence my stroke direction.

That's a good thing.

I'll try to get them standing up but I recall that Stan was kind of bent over while doing this as well.

Well, it's kind of like I said before. This didn't feel any different than if I had simply aimed everything at half ball hit.

It is but it isn't. A half ball for one alignment may be on or a little off depending on your head and eye position as well as body angle. The second half ball visual along with the first is a double check with both needing to be hitting their mark simultaneously. Both together is much more than you realize at this point.

This was a little off from that but not much. The ones that worked were on that cut angle and the others weren't.

You're saying the cut angle determined it and I'm saying what you do at address with the visuals takes care of the cut angle. Give it enough table time and you'll see what I'm saying.

I think it is doable and not that hard once you figure it out. I think doing it on long shots is very difficult. The ob is small and so it's hard to line up.

It won't be. They're seen the same way.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...what you do at address with the visuals takes care of the cut angle. Give it enough table time and you'll see what I'm saying.

So... learn to recognize the correct alignment through practice and experience.

Feels like there's a word for that...

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

Start off in a standing position for both of them and then go down and recheck once you're down.

That's a good thing.

It is but it isn't. A half ball for one alignment may be on or a little off depending on your head and eye position as well as body angle. The second half ball visual along with the first is a double check with both needing to be hitting their mark simultaneously. Both together is much more than you realize at this point.

You're saying the cut angle determined it and I'm saying what you do at address with the visuals takes care of the cut angle. Give it enough table time and you'll see what I'm saying.

It won't be. They're seen the same way.

OK, I'll try again by getting the visuals while standing and then rechecking while down on the shot. Are you still saying I should just let the cue point however it wants to as long as it is at ccb?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

OK, I'll try again by getting the visuals while standing and then rechecking while down on the shot. Are you still saying I should just let the cue point however it wants to as long as it is at ccb?

Your eye positioning, head, and body will dictate the cue angle. It will be at ccb. Make note of it the more you do it and you'll see what it does. Don't force it one way or the other.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So... learn to recognize the correct alignment through practice and experience.

Feels like there's a word for that...

pj
chgo

It's called rote. Not "feel" every time like it's brand new and guessing as the missing link.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It's called rote. Not "feel" every time like it's brand new and guessing as the missing link.

You really don't know what "feel" means in pool, do you? It's practiced estimation, which becomes "rote" application - like every aiming method, including CTE.

Becoming confident of it doesn't make it something else.

pj <- unsurprised
chgo

 

[Thresh]

I'm not sure if I said you never used CTE. I will say in this video you didn't do any of it correctly. Nottabit!

Why don't you show him how to correctly do it with the CAD models you claimed you used to prove CTE works but then never show anyone when asked, deflect and say everyone else doesn't know what they are talking about, then run away?