Where does this ball go? Using CTE methods.

[Colin Colenso]

From what I can make of various CTE systems or similar aim and pivot systems, it is often stated that their is no adjustment based on precise angles and that the exact location of the the pocket is irrelevant as the systems are somehow self-correcting such that they find the pocketing angle for you.

Hence, I want to know where the black OB would go to in the diagram below using either CTE or 90/90 aim and hip pivot.

As these systems take no account of exact pocket position, or table position, shouldn't they be able to find a pocket line here? Well, two pocket lines, one for each side. Even though none are shown and the edges of the table are hidden.

btw: The green circle is the table surface for those who may get confused.

Colin

 

[JoeyInCali]

Oh oh.
10 pages coming up.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Oh oh.
10 pages coming up.

:nono: nah, coz when people tell me where the ball will go, I'll let them know where the pocket actually is, and then we'll all live happily ever after :thumbup:

Colin

 

[SpiderWebComm]

:nono: nah, coz when people tell me where the ball will go, I'll let them know where the pocket actually is, and then we'll all live happily ever after :thumbup:

Colin

Colin,

You have to know which "direction" the pockets are - not the path to the pocket. We've discussed this a lot in private. Otherwise, you have no clue which side the CTE line you're supposed to pivot from.

Stan likes to position his head a certain way - I like to position my right foot a certain way, but I think it results in specific body alignments that result in different shots. Meaning, your diagram can be a moderate cut to the side pocket. Looking across the line slightly instead of straight along it will result in banking the ball in cross side versus cutting it in.

If you blind folded me and walked me up to a table and let me feel the rails so I knew where I was oriented at the table... and then put 3-sides of a cardboard box around these balls..... I could make the black ball no prob. Just make sure you lift the box before the OB smashes through it.

 

[eezbank]

From what I can make of various CTE systems or similar aim and pivot systems, it is often stated that their is no adjustment based on precise angles and that the exact location of the the pocket is irrelevant as the systems are somehow self-correcting such that they find the pocketing angle for you.

Hence, I want to know where the black OB would go to in the diagram below using either CTE or 90/90 aim and hip pivot.

As these systems take no account of exact pocket position, or table position, shouldn't they be able to find a pocket line here? Well, two pocket lines, one for each side. Even though none are shown and the edges of the table are hidden.

btw: The green circle is the table surface for those who may get confused.

Colin

with CTE the ball can be cut into any pocket or straight in. the pockets are relevant i don't know where or who told you they weren't. a tips width off center to either the left or right will give you a thick or thin cut depending on the cb ob locations. when the balls are made they don't just go in they split the pocket. if you use pro one all shots are made with a left to right tip pivot with different bridge positions. hope this is helpful.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,

You have to know which "direction" the pockets are - not the path to the pocket. We've discussed this a lot in private. Otherwise, you have no clue which side the CTE line you're supposed to pivot from.

Can we assume the pocket is left of the straight shot. Let's say between 15 and 35 degrees.

How would you make it then?

Stan likes to position his head a certain way - I like to position my right foot a certain way, but I think it results in specific body alignments that result in different shots. Meaning, your diagram can be a moderate cut to the side pocket. Looking across the line slightly instead of straight along it will result in banking the ball in cross side versus cutting it in.

If you blind folded me and walked me up to a table and let me feel the rails so I knew where I was oriented at the table... and then put 3-sides of a cardboard box around these balls..... I could make the black ball no prob. Just make sure you lift the box before the OB smashes through it.

:nono: Don't be setting yourself up for more proposition bets!

 

[Flex]

with CTE the ball can be cut into any pocket or straight in. the pockets are relevant i don't know where or who told you they weren't. a tips width off center to either the left or right will give you a thick or thin cut depending on the cb ob locations. when the balls are made they don't just go in they split the pocket. if you use pro one all shots are made with a left to right tip pivot with different bridge positions. hope this is helpful.

Very interesting.

With Pro One, how do the bridge positions vary and where do they vary and for what result?

Flex

 

[Colin Colenso]

with CTE the ball can be cut into any pocket or straight in. the pockets are relevant i don't know where or who told you they weren't. a tips width off center to either the left or right will give you a thick or thin cut depending on the cb ob locations. when the balls are made they don't just go in they split the pocket. if you use pro one all shots are made with a left to right tip pivot with different bridge positions. hope this is helpful.

Yes, that's helpful. If the bridge positions change relative to the CTE line and either side of it any angle can be created.

But that means there must be some bridge positioning methodology based on the cut angle somehow.

Would you care to explain that bridge positioning method?

In the other thread on 90/90, it was said by Ron V that the bridge doesn't move from the original alignment. So can't I just line this shot up 90/90 and then hip pivot to center CB, even though there is no exact pocket reference?

Colin

 

[eezbank]

Yes, that's helpful. If the bridge positions change relative to the CTE line and either side of it any angle can be created.

But that means there must be some bridge positioning methodology based on the cut angle somehow.

Would you care to explain that bridge positioning method?

In the other thread on 90/90, it was said by Ron V that the bridge doesn't move from the original alignment. So can't I just line this shot up 90/90 and then hip pivot to center CB, even though there is no exact pocket reference?

Colin

you could message stan or ronv on their sytems. i don't think it would be fair for me to give their work away. ronv will answer all your questions. stan you will probably need to take a private lesson.

 

[softshot]

my question would be... did you do your homework???

does this shot meet all the requirements of a 90/90 shot.. is it in that range?

from what I understand there are different pivot systems to meet the requirements of any given shot ... except for "pro one" which I know nothing about... acording to Ron there are a few different systems.. of which we have only seen one..

Is this a trick question?

 

[Colin Colenso]

my question would be... did you do your homework???

does this shot meet all the requirements of a 90/90 shot.. is it in that range?

from what I understand there are different pivot systems to meet the requirements of any given shot ... except for "pro one" which I know nothing about... acording to Ron there are a few different systems.. of which we have only seen one..

Is this a trick question?

Not really a trick question.

It is meant to prompt those, who may have thought the 90/90 system and those who have claimed CTE or other Houlian systems don't need to adjust according to the pocket position had merit, to rethink how their method adjusts for changing pot angles.

When the pocket is in the picture, our mind tends to see how the system could find it. Take away the pocket and the systems, how some describe them, should still create a cut angle.

So why doesn't someone take a stab at the pot angle this shot would take? (lets assume it is a cut shot to the left between 10 and 35 degrees). A shot in the range of the 90/90 method. All you need is 90/90 alignment + hip pivot right?


Colin

 

[softshot]

Not really a trick question.

It is meant to prompt those, who may have thought the 90/90 system and those who have claimed CTE or other Houlian systems don't need to adjust according to the pocket position had merit, to rethink how their method adjusts for changing pot angles.

When the pocket is in the picture, our mind tends to see how the system could find it. Take away the pocket and the systems, how some describe them, should still create a cut angle.

So why doesn't someone take a stab at the pot angle this shot would take? (lets assume it is a cut shot to the left between 10 and 35 degrees). A shot in the range of the 90/90 method. All you need is 90/90 alignment + hip pivot right?


Colin

it doesn't matter where you hit a ball... in a world without friction.. the ball will eventually end up in a pocket..the best shooter with the perfect stroke cannot send a ball anywhere but to a pocket... eventually.. the trick is which pocket???.....and can you call the shot??? and can you do it reliably???

 

[Cornerman]

From what I can make of various CTE systems or similar aim and pivot systems, it is often stated that their is no adjustment based on precise angles and that the exact location of the the pocket is irrelevant as the systems are somehow self-correcting such that they find the pocketing angle for you.

There's no answer because you've asked for an answer based on an erroneous question. That's not your fault, Colin. That's the internet's fault.

It's a little more proper to say that several of these systems don't busy themselves with an exact location of the pocket as you would need with the ghost ball system or any "geometrically correct" system like the double the distance aka times two system. Hence, the "cover the pocket" statement that many proponents like to say.

More appropriately, you'd like to know if it's a shallow cut to the left or right or a steeper cut to the left or right. I suspect the shot is actually straight in.

Furthermore, the 90/90 system as people have stated isn't one that is for all shots. That seems to be missing in your starting post. And I see it got missed in the back and forth. The 90/90 system seems to be focused on a certain range of shots from a certain distance. That statement in of itself speaks volumes about the understanding of several of these systems that get tossed about.

And, I know this will sound vague and obtuse, but what you see visually in real world 3D by aligning ball relations isn't the same as drawing them in 2D. You know that. That's been the complaint about the 2D drawings vs. actual table all along. I know the 2D drawing doesn't work. All of us that actually use these systems seem to know that also. But, there's no denying when we hit the table. So, discussing it on the internet becomes a word wrestling match.

It may simply be an optics idea that gets the cut a lot closer than the 2D drawing would ever indicate. Some of these systems I swear should never work, yet I find myself laughing and shaking my head as I watch balls go in that I had trouble with using the ghost ball that we all grew up with.

Fred

 

[Colin Colenso]

it doesn't matter where you hit a ball... in a world without friction.. the ball will eventually end up in a pocket..the best shooter with the perfect stroke cannot send a ball anywhere but to a pocket... eventually.. the trick is which pocket???.....and can you call the shot??? and can you do it reliably???

Take it easy on me softshot. I'm struggling enough with multi-pivoting cues and aiming systems that don't seem to care where the pocket is.

I'm just not ready for frictionless worlds quite yet.

Colin

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Like Cornerman said, 90/90 doesn't cover all shots on the table. There are other sighting adjustments with that system that we never discussed because of the melee. Ron has said you can shoot the entire table with 90/90, but what he's referring to is "with proper position", you can do that. Once you have a shot outside of the parameters of 90/90, well... then you're aiming 90/half.

I wasn't setting myself up for a proposition bet. I was just saying what I'm personally able to do. I wasn't trying to elicit any bet. Even if you did set that up, it wouldn't be a lock for me like that other bet... so I'd do it for free or maybe dinner... that'd be it since I don't gamble anymore. It'd still be a gamble just because I stroke crooked

I think it would make sense if you and some of the other CTE/RonV agnostics would pay for a lesson. That's all I'm saying. You guys should pay for a lesson, practice for a week or two... and THEN let's discuss this stuff since we'd all be on the same page. For obvious reasons, it's just too taxing instructing people in a hostile thread.

Stand beside Stan or Ron and pose this question and say it doesn't work and then report back.:thumbup:

Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

There's no answer because you've asked for an answer based on an erroneous question. That's not your fault, Colin. That's the internet's fault.

It's a little more proper to say that several of these systems don't busy themselves with an exact location of the pocket as you would need with the ghost ball system or any "geometrically correct" system like the double the distance aka times two system. Hence, the "cover the pocket" statement that many proponents like to say.

More appropriately, you'd like to know if it's a shallow cut to the left or right or a steeper cut to the left or right. I suspect the shot is actually straight in.

Furthermore, the 90/90 system as people have stated isn't one that is for all shots. That seems to be missing in your starting post. And I see it got missed in the back and forth. The 90/90 system seems to be focused on a certain range of shots from a certain distance. That statement in of itself speaks volumes about the understanding of several of these systems that get tossed about.

And, I know this will sound vague and obtuse, but what you see visually in real world 3D by aligning ball relations isn't the same as drawing them in 2D. You know that. That's been the complaint about the 2D drawings vs. actual table all along. I know the 2D drawing doesn't work. All of us that actually use these systems seem to know that also. But, there's no denying when we hit the table. So, discussing it on the internet becomes a word wrestling match.

It may simply be an optics idea that gets the cut a lot closer than the 2D drawing would ever indicate. Some of these systems I swear should never work, yet I find myself laughing and shaking my head as I watch balls go in that I had trouble with using the ghost ball that we all grew up with.

Fred

Thanks Fred,

Yeah, I know the question is kind of silly, but it does bring attention to the lack of 'how tos' in some systems when it comes to finding new pot angles without actually referring to the pocket in any way or only in a general way. e.g. Hal Houle told me it doesn't matter where I place my bridge using CTE, just left of the CTE line for full cuts to the right and right of the CTE line for thin cuts to the right.

I've played with the CTE system quite a bit and it just doesn't work for me, though I did learn to pot quite well using the CTE line as a sighting reference.

Also, I think being very careful in looking through and aligning the tip to center CB. Also, the pre-alignment this system encourages (trusting the alignment with no swooping or bridge twitching) helps people who practice it to get a strong eye for spotting the required CB line for the pot angle.

Personally I tend to think the lack of focus on the adjustment method is necessary for players to start to 'see the required CB line by feel', though they think they are seeing the pivot line. The mind can be an amazing tool for finding potting lines when a player cues in a straight line often. The angles get burned into the subconscious memory.

If there is some kind of brilliant, magical geometry behind all this then it unfortunately hasn't lent itself to me via my experimental trials. Nor on my chalk-board.

I do think, at some stage, these approaches, and how and why they work, need to be explained much better. If someone can show it in real life, then they should be able to explain it on video right?

Colin

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Thanks Fred,

Yeah, I know the question is kind of silly, but it does bring attention to the lack of 'how tos' in some systems when it comes to finding new pot angles without actually referring to the pocket in any way or only in a general way. e.g. Hal Houle told me it doesn't matter where I place my bridge using CTE, just left of the CTE line for full cuts to the right and right of the CTE line for thin cuts to the right.

I've played with the CTE system quite a bit and it just doesn't work for me, though I did learn to pot quite well using the CTE line as a sighting reference.

Also, I think being very careful in looking through and aligning the tip to center CB. Also, the pre-alignment this system encourages (trusting the alignment with no swooping or bridge twitching) helps people who practice it to get a strong eye for spotting the required CB line for the pot angle.

Personally I tend to think the lack of focus on the adjustment method is necessary for players to start to 'see the required CB line by feel', though they think they are seeing the pivot line. The mind can be an amazing tool for finding potting lines when a player cues in a straight line often. The angles get burned into the subconscious memory.

If there is some kind of brilliant, magical geometry behind all this then it unfortunately hasn't lent itself to me via my experimental trials. Nor on my chalk-board.

I do think, at some stage, these approaches, and how and why they work, need to be explained much better. If someone can show it in real life, then they should be able to explain it on video right?

Colin

Stan's considering a video.

Colin, how far is your standard bridge length? Just curious.

 

[Cornerman]

I do think, at some stage, these approaches, and how and why they work, need to be explained much better. If someone can show it in real life, then they should be able to explain it on video right?

Colin

It'll probably be you, my friend. I spent almost 10 years trying (and failing apparently) to explain backhand english and the aim-and-pivot method by words and diagrams on the internet, and in one fuzzy video on your cell phone (handy for those in Germany), you were able to describe backhand english to the masses as if anyone else's prior verbal descpription was in an alien language.

Fred

 

[Colin Colenso]

Stan's considering a video.

Colin, how far is your standard bridge length? Just curious.

Dave,

I'd say my preferred bridge length is about 14 inches. Some people think that is very long, but I think most people would be surprised how long their bridge is if the actually measured from the bridge V to the surface of the CB. Most of the pros I watch seem to be shooting with a similar length bridge to mine.

I do sometimes bridge as short as 10" using BHE, on power shots or when the balls are close, such that swerve doesn't affect the effective pivot point.

I have tried longer and shorted pivots on CTE. Neither produces any miracles for me. You see, I have shot with and studied the effects of pivoting, in my research for a book / video on BHE that I pretty much know where every shot is going to go based on my bridge position and length.

When I play CTE, I just have no reference where my bridge should go. I know where to put it so that the shot goes, but I cannot see how the system can get me to that spot.

Perhaps the fact that I know what my bridge point and pivot will achieve so readily, makes it harder for me to just 'see the aim line' onto which your bridge slides, as I think you've described it to me.

It seems to me your seeing this aim line is something that comes with lots of practice. That it does not have its origin within any exact pivot points or any other points on the table. It is just a line that crosses the CTE at some angle that you get to know as the required line to make the shot.

Is that far off from what you are experiencing? If so, how?

Thanks,
Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

It'll probably be you, my friend. I spent almost 10 years trying (and failing apparently) to explain backhand english and the aim-and-pivot method by words and diagrams on the internet, and in one fuzzy video on your cell phone (handy for those in Germany), you were able to describe backhand english to the masses as if anyone else's prior verbal descpription was in an alien language.

Fred

Thanks Fred,
I'll try my best to explain CTE type systems in a way that makes the most sense and hopefully in a clear enough way that it won't annoy too many people I still need to learn a bit more and it would help if some terms could be better clarified.

I'm a bit shy to link to that mobile phone video. There're a few changes I'd like to make to it, (e.g. I now think any changes in squirt with speed are pretty insignificant, and that swerve is essentially the entire culprit in changing effective pivot points) though I did shoot with only about 15 minutes of preparation and during my early days studying this system.

I'm currently working on a high quality, much more comprehensive video on BHE ( an Aim & Pivot System) which will also include a systematic approach to throw compensation and effective pivot point determination, which I think opens up BHE to knew ground and a higher degree of accuracy.

Colin