Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
I understand perfectly. The answer is something you either don't agree with or plain don't understand. They are all right to left pivots using basic cte. I've tried to show that the edge you see isn't the same as you push it down the table. You would rotate your initial set up to the cte line. Think about it...you wouldn't expect different results if you squared up the same on all three shots. That's the point I'm trying to get across. As usual what you get back isn't mutual respect. Just rude comments.
When the video comes out Stan will show how to make all shots with a left to right pivot.
His post 1140 shows what he was getting at, If the Cue ball - Object ball distance is the same, then I would believe the center to edge line would be the same... which would result in then same angle out on each shot.. the same angle out would not pocket all 3 balls..
Not trying to be a smart a##, just that is the way I see it.
How far the balls are up or down the table would not change the line from center to edge..(if the distance between them is constant) but would change where the object ball goes...
Last edited:
And as polite as I can put it that is where you are wrong set the balls up point at the rail at the edge you see from the cb center to ob edge. See if you point at the same exact spot on the rail. you won't.
Ok, I see what you are saying but if the line from the cue ball center to the rail changed so does the line the object ball goes on...
The most common versions of CTE, with links to supporting resources, are described in detail here:
I hope that helps,
Dave
This is why i posted those 3 shots on 3 different tables.
If what eez is saying is true, then as in his diagram, all the lines going to the rail off the edge of the OB would be parallel.
If they all have the same pivot, then the pivot cannot be the distinguishing factor in what changes to make them all go in the hole.
If the pivot is the same, then, the angle of the shot is the same.
If all tangent points off the OB are parallel as they should be if the angle of the shot is the same, then all the paths of the actual OBs that are perpendicular to the edge of the OB tangent lines would ALSO parallel.
If the exit angles are all parallel, then the OBs cannot all go in the hole.
If an OB travels a perpendicular line from the tangent line that takes it to the pocket, all shots above and below that that have the same characteristics of that shot, distance, edge point, pivot, would all fall to the right or left of the pocket.
If what eez is saying is true, then as in his diagram, all the lines going to the rail off the edge of the OB would be parallel.
If they all have the same pivot, then the pivot cannot be the distinguishing factor in what changes to make them all go in the hole.
If the pivot is the same, then, the angle of the shot is the same.
If all tangent points off the OB are parallel as they should be if the angle of the shot is the same, then all the paths of the actual OBs that are perpendicular to the edge of the OB tangent lines would ALSO parallel.
If the exit angles are all parallel, then the OBs cannot all go in the hole.
If an OB travels a perpendicular line from the tangent line that takes it to the pocket, all shots above and below that that have the same characteristics of that shot, distance, edge point, pivot, would all fall to the right or left of the pocket.
CB center to OB outside edge = CB inside edge to OB center (in 2D space, regardless of distance)
In real life (not on cuetable), as distance increases, one of the above breaks down based on perspective.
As your eyes move off the CTEL for thick/thin shots, this distance is dictated by shot distance and outermost edge (CB/OB target alignment).
For instance, let's say a shooter is sighting a thick shot (which means your eyes are on the outside of the CTEL). Because you're not looking STRAIGHT down the CTEL (as I've said for years), the CB inside edge must maintain an alignment that is a constant as far as perspective is concerned (and a variable as far as geometry is concerned).
I'll leave it at that. Stan and I have thousands of hours invested into this over 5 or so years. If PJ knew more than us (as he claims), he'd understand these relationships. He doesn't because he might have 30 mins invested on a table and isn't thinking out of the box.
Superstar- you're a smart guy. Go to a table and see what I'm referring to.
Dave
Last edited:
I honestly think these two quotes point to a solution to the entire CTE debate!
Many cut angles (all that fall within a given range) can be created by pivoting the same way. In other words, Cookie Man is correct. You just need to pivot a slightly different amount for each cut angle. In other words, Patrick Johnson is correct.
Problem solved!!!
You can pivot the "same way" and still use a slightly different "effective pivot length" for each shot. I think if everybody was able to see both sides of this issue, there would no longer be a need for debate and animosity, and the benefits of CTE could be accepted and appreciated for what they are.
FYI the meaning of "effective pivot length," along with explanations and illustrations of why it is important, is presented in detail here:
I'm glad the age-old debate is finally over! :grin-square:
Regards,
Dave
It would be able to make any 30-degree cut, as long as it didn't pivot. For all other cuts it would need a "feel" chip.
pj
chgo
Believe me Spidey, i have already tried it out several times.
I am still not convinced that it is more then a pre shot routine that when done repeatedly, give someone basic fundamentals that aid them in pocketing balls, instead of a specific system.
Personally, i don't care what it is.
If it manages to help someones game, then it has it's place.
Whether it manages to do that by an exacting system, a semi system with a little feel, or if it's all brainwashing to make people think it's a system when it is nothing but feel, i don't care.
It's not really for me.
But that is not to say that it can't be a good thing for someone else.
I am simply seeking answers to the questions i have about it to further my knowledge base, to help sort out all the fact, from the fiction, that i believe exists.
That is not to say that the answers are out there. They might not be.
But that doesn't stop me from asking the questions.
If you can't understand why this matters, then you have no real ability to understand why it works, and this conversation is useless. I am shocked that someone who claims a good knowledge of math does not see the relevance and truth to why their is a rotating edge, and why it matters.
I see green and the rails, in fact it looks pretty close to see-through, although I am positive it is a reflection.
Post the Money.
Thanks for the citation from an engineering POV:
Thick, thin, thinner…3 aiming positions…all 3, start at CTE? Then there is the pre pivot parallel shift of ½, full tip, etc.? I concur that the hitherto shift for the distance between the CB and OB has not been defined. If the same shift of ½, or full tip, etc. is required, then, can that be accomplished by changing the bridge distance closer or farther from the CB?
That has been my contention about CTE…what are those metrics? I think that CTE is viable if one knows what fraction to the cue tip is required for the offset – pre pivot, or the shifting distance of the bridge forward or back from the CB….what dr.dave and others asks.
I would prefer that the bridge distance from the CB, i.e., 12” (or your normal) remain the same and that the parallel offset - pre pivot could be tabulated for all of the cut angles and distances between the CB and OB be defined. Then, how does one adjust for CIT, squirt, swerve etc.? Some here have intimated that applying english is how to alter the angle from the perfect thick, thin and thinner. That said, how do you get position for the next shot?
Regarding the first paragraph: It is true that the parallel shift amount depends on your bridge length. It is very easy to figure out though. Start with a straight in shot. Sight CTE, then make a 1/2 tip parrallel shift. Now get into your stance and pivot to the center. If you are straight on with the OB, then you have the correct amount. If not, adjust the amount in or out until you are straight on with the OB after your pivot. Once you are straight on, that is the amount you will pivot either way for you bridge length.
Because the contact point on the cue ball has changed.
My actual parrallel shift before the pivot is determined for my bridge length as I stated above. I did start with the Dr. Dave version though. I would have a hard time disagreeing with the idea that my exposure is very limited thus far, however, after you shoot some balls with it, it becomes very easy to visualize what is going on from a gemoetrical stand point.
I honestly think these two quotes point to a solution to the entire CTE debate!
Many cut angles (all that fall within a given range) can be created by pivoting the same way. In other words, Cookie Man is correct. You just need to pivot a slightly different amount for each cut angle. In other words, Patrick Johnson is correct.
Problem solved!!!
You can pivot the "same way" and still use a slightly different "effective pivot length" for each shot. I think if everybody was able to see both sides of this issue, there would no longer be a need for debate and animosity, and the benefits of CTE could be accepted and appreciated for what they are.
FYI the meaning of "effective pivot length," along with explanations and illustrations of why it is important, is presented in detail here:
I'm glad the age-old debate is finally over! :grin-square:
Regards,
Dave
I pivot left to right on every ball. Thick or thin. Only one shot over and over. Did not happen overnight or without help. But I gained more than
anyone here would believe. It is easier to play position when you know what part of the pocket that the ob will enter .
Genes perfect aim information is very important when sighting edges
Last edited:
My goodness man. The pivot is the same, the ctel always changes. PJ hasn't been correct in this thread at all. He needs to start a feel thread, not that I should be telling him what to do, just saying.I honestly think these two quotes point to a solution to the entire CTE debate!
Many cut angles (all that fall within a given range) can be created by pivoting the same way. In other words, Cookie Man is correct. You just need to pivot a slightly different amount for each cut angle. In other words, Patrick Johnson is correct.
Problem solved!!!
You can pivot the "same way" and still use a slightly different "effective pivot length" for each shot. I think if everybody was able to see both sides of this issue, there would no longer be a need for debate and animosity, and the benefits of CTE could be accepted and appreciated for what they are.
FYI the meaning of "effective pivot length," along with explanations and illustrations of why it is important, is presented in detail here:
I'm glad the age-old debate is finally over! :grin-square:
Regards,
Dave
Facts not understood in this debate for some reason:
- Aiming is a 3D process, one way or another. Cuetable is GREAT for theory, but practice is quite different. CB/OB relationships change over distance, and that's a fact. Until people understand this, we'll never progress as a group. Unless, of course, people are convince the OB appears the same size as the CB with a 6' shot (as an example). Offsets from a baseline are totally different than if they were 1' apart.
- Your vision around a sphere changes as your perspective changes. Moving your eyes just 1" to either side of a center-to-center line, CTE line, or any other relation, changes the actual edge you're seeing. Find a street sign that's just over a hill in your neighborhood. Walk to the opposite side of the hill. Walk up the hill 1 step at a time. You will come to a point where at one step you can't see the street sign over the hill, yet, with one more step you see the top of the sign popping up over the horizon. According to some people on here, both steps are congruent in your perspective and vision--- but they're not.
- CTE has more than 1 cb/ob relationship. Actually, the shooter references two concurrently for the correct perspective. Another reason why these cuetable diagrams can't work.
- Aiming is a 3D process, one way or another. Cuetable is GREAT for theory, but practice is quite different. CB/OB relationships change over distance, and that's a fact. Until people understand this, we'll never progress as a group. Unless, of course, people are convince the OB appears the same size as the CB with a 6' shot (as an example). Offsets from a baseline are totally different than if they were 1' apart.
- Your vision around a sphere changes as your perspective changes. Moving your eyes just 1" to either side of a center-to-center line, CTE line, or any other relation, changes the actual edge you're seeing. Find a street sign that's just over a hill in your neighborhood. Walk to the opposite side of the hill. Walk up the hill 1 step at a time. You will come to a point where at one step you can't see the street sign over the hill, yet, with one more step you see the top of the sign popping up over the horizon. According to some people on here, both steps are congruent in your perspective and vision--- but they're not.
- CTE has more than 1 cb/ob relationship. Actually, the shooter references two concurrently for the correct perspective. Another reason why these cuetable diagrams can't work.
- Status