Why CTE is silly

[GetMeThere]

The main reason why CTE is COMPLETE BULLSHIT (and, I’m sure, made up as somebody’s joke to show how dumb people are), is that there’s no discussion in it whatsoever about the PRECISION needed to pocket balls.

A recent thread has opened more discussion about it, and one post pointed further to a discussion about the error range in shot-making

I was surprised to see in that last post the claim that a fine cut shot could have an error range of only about a TENTH OF A MILLIMETER! Personally, I’m a little reluctant to just take people’s word for such things—and I had always intended to someday have a look at just this issue myself—so I thought I would figure out this information myself and see what it looked like. Below is the data I worked out. FIRST, please note, the info below says NOTHING about the need to adjust for throw or English—but those issues change only the aiming POINT, not the error range in aiming and making a shot.

To figure out how to calculate these I drew the diagram below, and quickly realized it was simple: I only needed to calculate the distance of point “a” from the origin—for balls of 2.25 inches in diameter.

The first bit of info is from Excel. The columns are:

1) The angle (in degrees) off the straight line down which the CB is shot. So, for example, a “1” is one degree off from a straight-in shot. An “89” is the finest cut shot.

2) Distance of CB edge (at equator) from OB edge (at equator). For example, to shoot the OB 1 degree to the left (from the straight line path of the CB), align the CB so that it’s left edge is 0.039 inches to the right of the OB edge. (Note: There is some rounding error in the figures, to make them easier to look at).

3) This difference between the measurement for this angle, and the preceding angle. This figure shows the difference in aim needed to change ONE DEGREE of angle, AT the angle being shot at. Note that this changes depending on the thickness of the cut.

4) Just for fun, I noted in this column how many “64ths of the OB” the aim point (col 2) would be at. If you’re going to use an edge aiming system, obviously you can’t estimate to aim “1.354 inches” from the OB edge. You have to have some method for estimating. It seems to me that the only reasonable way would be to divide the OB into fractions, and to aim at a certain fraction. The FINEST possible fraction system I could imagine would be practical would be into 64ths of the OB—making each fraction about 1/28th of an inch (2.25"/64).

If you want to try these calculations yourself, here are the Excel formulas for each column:

2 (aim): “=2.25*COS(RADIANS(90-RC[-1]))”
3 (Diff): “=RC[-1]-R[-1]C[-1]”
4 (sixty-fourths): “=ROUND(RC[-2]/(2.25/64),0)”

The main thing to note about these columns is toward the bottom of the last column: As cuts get thinner and thinner, more “1 degree angles” are included in each 64th fraction of the object ball.

Btw, an interesting feature showed up by using 64ths as the aiming point fractions: The actual ANGLE is pretty close to the “64th number.” To show it more clearly, I also included the eight fractions as well. Of course, after 50-60 or so degrees, this doesn’t work anymore—as shown above: Fine cuts become VERY precise.

Below is a table with a selection of error ranges for shots. To calculate this I used an effective pocket size of two inches –for the CENTER of the object balls. This is a reasonable pocket size (about 4 ½" pocket), for most angle shots—even along the rail, if they’re slow enough. It’s not PERFECT, however—but a good estimate for the purposes of the discussion.

Please note that the figures in the table represent RANGES of aim point necessary to make the shot. They show how PRECISE your aim needs to be. To express how accurate your aim point has to be in the “plus or minus” manner, divide the figures by 2! So, even for the easiest shots of only a 1 foot shot, straight in, requires that you hit the OB with the CB over a range of about 3/8ths inch centered over the PERFECT spot.
Fine cut shots over four feet or so allow an aiming area only the size of TWO OR THREE HUMAN HAIRS in order to pocket the OB.

I also noted a “spot shot” made from near the head spot: The CB must hit the right spot on the OB within a range of 1/16th inch—i.e., +/- 1/32 inch. Not easy—and CERTAINLY no discussion of that kind of precision is mentioned in any way in any CTE method I’ve heard about

Formulas (if you’re interested):
Angles:

“=2*ATAN(1/12)*(180/PI())”
“=2*ATAN(1/24)*(180/PI())”
“=2*ATAN(1/36)*(180/PI())”
…etc.

0 deg cut: “=0.039*RC11”
30 deg cut: “=0.034*RC11”
45 deg cut: “=0.028*RC11”
60 deg cut: “=0.02*RC11”
80 deg cut: “=0.007*RC11”

 

[manwon]

The main reason why CTE is COMPLETE BULLSHIT (and, I’m sure, made up as somebody’s joke to show how dumb people are), is that there’s no discussion in it whatsoever about the PRECISION needed to pocket balls.

A recent thread has opened more discussion about it, and one post pointed further to a discussion about the error range in shot-making

I was surprised to see in that last post the claim that a fine cut shot could have an error range of only about a TENTH OF A MILLIMETER! Personally, I’m a little reluctant to just take people’s word for such things—and I had always intended to someday have a look at just this issue myself—so I thought I would figure out this information myself and see what it looked like. Below is the data I worked out. FIRST, please note, the info below says NOTHING about the need to adjust for throw or English—but those issues change only the aiming POINT, not the error range in aiming and making a shot.

To figure out how to calculate these I drew the diagram below, and quickly realized it was simple: I only needed to calculate the distance of point “a” from the origin—for balls of 2.25 inches in diameter.

The first bit of info is from Excel. The columns are:

1) The angle (in degrees) off the straight line down which the CB is shot. So, for example, a “1” is one degree off from a straight-in shot. An “89” is the finest cut shot.

2) Distance of CB edge (at equator) from OB edge (at equator). For example, to shoot the OB 1 degree to the left (from the straight line path of the CB), align the CB so that it’s left edge is 0.039 inches to the right of the OB edge. (Note: There is some rounding error in the figures, to make them easier to look at).

3) This difference between the measurement for this angle, and the preceding angle. This figure shows the difference in aim needed to change ONE DEGREE of angle, AT the angle being shot at. Note that this changes depending on the thickness of the cut.

4) Just for fun, I noted in this column how many “64ths of the OB” the aim point (col 2) would be at. If you’re going to use an edge aiming system, obviously you can’t estimate to aim “1.354 inches” from the OB edge. You have to have some method for estimating. It seems to me that the only reasonable way would be to divide the OB into fractions, and to aim at a certain fraction. The FINEST possible fraction system I could imagine would be practical would be into 64ths of the OB—making each fraction about 1/28th of an inch (2.25"/64).

If you want to try these calculations yourself, here are the Excel formulas for each column:

2 (aim): “=2.25*COS(RADIANS(90-RC[-1]))”
3 (Diff): “=RC[-1]-R[-1]C[-1]”
4 (sixty-fourths): “=ROUND(RC[-2]/(2.25/64),0)”

The main thing to note about these columns is toward the bottom of the last column: As cuts get thinner and thinner, more “1 degree angles” are included in each 64th fraction of the object ball.

Btw, an interesting feature showed up by using 64ths as the aiming point fractions: The actual ANGLE is pretty close to the “64th number.” To show it more clearly, I also included the eight fractions as well. Of course, after 50-60 or so degrees, this doesn’t work anymore—as shown above: Fine cuts become VERY precise.

Below is a table with a selection of error ranges for shots. To calculate this I used an effective pocket size of two inches –for the CENTER of the object balls. This is a reasonable pocket size (about 4 ½" pocket), for most angle shots—even along the rail, if they’re slow enough. It’s not PERFECT, however—but a good estimate for the purposes of the discussion.

Please note that the figures in the table represent RANGES of aim point necessary to make the shot. They show how PRECISE your aim needs to be. To express how accurate your aim point has to be in the “plus or minus” manner, divide the figures by 2! So, even for the easiest shots of only a 1 foot shot, straight in, requires that you hit the OB with the CB over a range of about 3/8ths inch centered over the PERFECT spot.
Fine cut shots over four feet or so allow an aiming area only the size of TWO OR THREE HUMAN HAIRS in order to pocket the OB.

I also noted a “spot shot” made from near the head spot: The CB must hit the right spot on the OB within a range of 1/16th inch—i.e., +/- 1/32 inch. Not easy—and CERTAINLY no discussion of that kind of precision is mentioned in any way in any CTE method I’ve heard about

Formulas (if you’re interested):
Angles:

“=2*ATAN(1/12)*(180/PI())”
“=2*ATAN(1/24)*(180/PI())”
“=2*ATAN(1/36)*(180/PI())”
…etc.

0 deg cut: “=0.039*RC11”
30 deg cut: “=0.034*RC11”
45 deg cut: “=0.028*RC11”
60 deg cut: “=0.02*RC11”
80 deg cut: “=0.007*RC11”

What is CTE?

 

[peter_gunn]

manwon roflmao
nice quote

 

[justadub]

It's been a few months since we've had multiple cte threads on the first page... this ought to get interesting again.

 

[greyghost]

God i love these threads......

does you bring a protracter and TI-89 calculator to the pool room when you play?

CTE works, BHE works, my Shadow Method works.....there are many aiming methods that work just fine that don't need complex math and figuring.....sorry lol

LET THE WAR BEGIN!!!!!!

Here PJ, PJ, PJ, PJ......come and get it, got a hot steaming pile of aiming thread for you my friend!

-Grey Ghost-

 

[peter_gunn]

(user is in comfortable chair & waiting for some fire)

 

[peter_gunn]

(also watching Sarajevo open final match Raj Hundal vs Ralf Souquet)
http://www.tvsa.ba/ba/tvsa_uzivo/

 

[mooseman]

After all the pro and cons, naysayers, whatever.... all I will say is that while you are trying to prove that CTE is BS I think you are missing the point. While your calculations are precise did you account for the size of the pockets? There is always enough wiggle room that the shot will go. This is where any of the aiming systems are actually valid up to a point (UNTIL you have to be precise).

 

[Gerry]

pool is NOT that hard......put the protractor away and just practice a little. ALL aiming systems work IF the user feels they work.....along with VooDoo, re-incarnation, 4o1k's, energy drinks, LD shafts, lite beer, ab master, chuck norris, ghost whisperers, and the comment that the measles cueball is bigger.....NOT!


anyway.....get on the table, work out your issues, and go win a world championship!

G>

 

[GetMeThere]

After all the pro and cons, naysayers, whatever.... all I will say is that while you are trying to prove that CTE is BS I think you are missing the point. While your calculations are precise did you account for the size of the pockets? There is always enough wiggle room that the shot will go. This is where any of the aiming systems are actually valid up to a point (UNTIL you have to be precise).

That's the point: The last diagram gives ranges of accuracy necessary to pocket balls IN 4.5 inch pockets (approximately--it's difficult to say EXACTLY, sometimes it even depends on the spin of the ball as it enters the pocket).

To say "There is always enough wiggle room that the shot will go" is pretty strange?!?! So, people don't miss shots then?

The last table shows that many shots past 4 feet, and ALL shots beyond 6 feet, require that you hit the OB somewhere within less than a 1/16" inch area centered around the EXACT spot. IOW, to make the shot (INCLUDING wiggle room in the pockets, and not correcting for throw or english) requires you know the EXACT place to hit the OB, and you hit that spot plus or minus 1/32 inch.

I've heard or seen nothing from CTE advocates that DESCRIBES in any manner an area as small as plus or minus 1/32 of an inch, or how to aim for it!

 

[GetMeThere]

does you bring a protracter and TI-89 calculator to the pool room when you play?

CTE works, BHE works, my Shadow Method works.....

The calculations are to demonstrate that any aiming method that "works" must specify an aiming area very often as small as--or much smaller than-- 1/16"

I've heard nothing in any discussion of CTE that could be used to describe or define an area that small.

 

[Roger Long]

What is CTE?

What "CTE" stands for has been answered many times, but what it actually is will be answered in the next issue of a series of articles about CTE that is running on the front page of this web site right now.

Roger

 

[thehammer37]

Go visit Randyg, or Stan Shuffett.

 

[duckie]

What seems silly to me is you.

Silly in that there is no reason for a thread like this. CTE has been beat to death and just needs to stay dead.

 

[greyghost]

What seems silly to me is you.

Silly in that there is no reason for a thread like this. CTE has been beat to death and just needs to stay dead.

You can't kill anything that can not die.......CTE is like the benevolent monster Frankenstein......it was the people that were evil...not the monster....it works especially when you actually try using it properly and don't enter into it thinking only ghostball can make balls.

-Grey Ghost-

 

[TX Poolnut]

My brain just twitched when I looked at all those charts. :embarrassed2:

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

CTE is a system that works for some, and don't work for others.

It is like arguing of what is better Taco Bell, or Del Taco, everyone has their favorite!

 

[lfigueroa]

does you bring a protracter and TI-89 calculator to the pool room when you play?

CTE works, BHE works, my Shadow Method works.....there are many aiming methods that work just fine that don't need complex math and figuring.....sorry lol

LET THE WAR BEGIN!!!!!!

Here PJ, PJ, PJ, PJ......come and get it, got a hot steaming pile of aiming thread for you my friend!

-Grey Ghost-

Just curious: are you taking issue with his cipherin' (which I think Bob Jewett did a long time ago) or, are you saying that CTE can achieve that level of precision? Or something else?

I don't believe anyone is talking about taking a laserometer to the pool hall, but it does seem that he's making a valid point: with 4.5 pockets, an aiming system would need to put you within those kinds of tolerances for you to successfully pocket balls. If we're in agreement that he's in the ball park with his numbers, then could you point out where (anywhere) it's been shown that a player employing CTE, or your shadow method for that matter, can consistently achieve that level of precision.

Lou Figueroa

 

[TX Poolnut]

CTE is a system that works for some, and don't work for others.

It is like arguing of what is better Taco Bell, or Del Taco, everyone has their favorite!

I disagree. We're talking about math. Either 1+1=2 or it doesn't.

Math isn't subjective like food preferences.

TX Poolnut <--loves Taco Bell

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Here is another GREAT CTE Resource!

P.S. i don;t like Taco Bell or Del Taco as I like Authentic South of the Border Food.