Can someone point me to a set of instructions? I'm sincere, I want to try CTE just to fool around with it. I tried it a couple years ago, but I'm not sure I had the right set of instructions.
I don't think you're supposed to get a complete set of instructions. From what I can gather, you're either supposed to pay $40 for a DVD, or even more for professional instruction. I think the CTE "supporters" have made that clear in a lot of the early posts on this thread (a few DAYS ago :wink. I think this is a "sore spot" with some of the debaters on this thread.
Here's a post from a couple years ago, written by someone schooled personally by Hal, describing the CTE aiming method. As you see, the basic instructions are extremely simple -- just sight from center of CB to edge of OB, offset the cue from that line appropriately to the inside or outside, pivot the cue tip back to the center of the CB, and shoot. This poster was not a CTE advocate; in fact, he thought the technique was useful to a degree but quite flawed as an "exact" aiming method.
What he describes is basic Houlian CTE, but I believe that Dave Segal and Stan Shuffett have taken the concept considerably further to determine things like cue offsets, bridge lengths, pivot techniques, and "adjustments" needed to make it work better than it does by just following the elementary prescription.
Can someone point me to a set of instructions? I'm sincere, I want to try CTE just to fool around with it. I tried it a couple years ago, but I'm not sure I had the right set of instructions.
I'd prefer something written if available, so I can bring it to the table with me. I know there are a lot of posts with the instructions buried inside them. I'm looking for something in one or two paragraphs just on how to do it, not how it works.
Thanks.
Edit: I think what I had tried before was a youtube of Ron V's (I think) pivot from the hip. I just never got it, but I'd like to try whatever is the current best written description of CTE.
If Ron V. was demonstrating a pivot system, it was probably 90/90 aiming. This system is a cousin of Cte and works on exactly the same basic principles. It has a slightly different starting alignment and employs a slightly different pivot. But it is in essence Cte using a bigger movement. In fact the systems overlap on certain shots.
I posted about a week ago an offer to send 90/90 diagrams to any takers. I also included an additional diagram with a variation I use for pivoting in one direction only using this system. If you would like these you can shoot me a pm with your email address and I'll be glad to send it to you.
Despite this offer I only received two responses. You would think that with all the debate going on about Cte that this information would be in demand. Isn't the main problem people not understanding the mechanics of pivot systems? Well, here's the best I can do...a repeat offer. Hopefully certain posters will take me up on it (anonymously of course) so these discussions can be more meaningful. I see some of the best pool minds going to waste and debating instead of discussing topics. Both sides should lose their egos and let the past stay in the past. Any takers?
Best,
Mike
EDIT This isn't anything to do with the Pro One system. It is the 90/90 system. Pro One is a completely different technique.
BRKNRUN:
If you have a rifleman shoot at a round water tower and tell him to shoot the very edge of the tower he will take a chunck out....Now have him step 5 or so paces to the left or right and tell him to shoot the edge again....The chunk from the edge that is taken out will be in a different place than the first....
Oh behave!
C'mon, PJ. After little research it seems that you've posted 3,857 times in threads with Cte in the title. That's almost half your posts! And you don't even know how to use Cte. You are leading by example.
PJ "Now all you have to do is tell us what that means"
You guys are making this way harder than it is. When you sight the shot, if you look CB center to edge and that looks like too much angle, you simply adjust one tip to the outside of the CB, take your bridge, then pivot to the center of the CB. If the shot will go with CB center to edge (which a lot will), then you shoot it that way. If it is not enough angle, then you move one tip to the inside of the CB, take your bridge, then pivot to CB center. I just tried shooting with CTE as described on Dr. Dave's web page last night for the first time ever, and I was able to figure that out very quickly. The exact degrees really do not matter. You can tell what is needed by looking Cb center to edge to start, and adjusting in or out as needed.
We don't really need more examples to convince us that CTE is used (apparently successfully) by people with absolutely no idea of basic geometry or logic.
That sounds like a pretty general statement. I'll take that under review, talk to some Op's and get back to you. I want to be logical about this, you know.
Go back and look at the end of the video. Can you see the 2 balls on the table reflecting in the foil???? That would be a NO!!!!!! No reflection or at least not enough to make out any thing...it is fanfolded and wrinkled texture. I shot 9 balls in about 1 minute 30 seconds if you take out moving the 8 out of the pocket.
I can promise you I was not looking at any thing but the object ball - Cue ball and letting my minds eye see the pocket.....
You can't explain it so it must not be true?
Sounds like another argument that is going on right now!!!!
Like I said this is not a true blind test... I can see the end rail (my side)and part of the side rails, that gives me enough information to make 6 out of 9, and actually if I had slowed down my speed 2 of the misses could have went. But It proves NOTHING!!! except this and Dave's video are parlor tricks....
This does VERY NICELY for a true "blinded/obfuscated view" test. And you shot very well for not being able to see the pocket as well.
Again, I'm not sure why we're doing these "blind view" tests here in this thread (I'm lost on where we got on that track), but your test is probably the fairest, truest test of shooting at a pocket one cannot see, or reference. That windshield sunscreen does a really nice job of putting a wall up between you and the other half of the table. And like you demonstrated, the only way to "see" the pocket is to set the camera right on the table bed, to see under the windshield screen (read: even "chinning the cue," one's eyes are still too high to see under it).
Thank you Sean,
I will try to refrain from posting any more videos about this, I was just trying to prove the point, that as I had said, Dave's video did not prove that CTE was a better way to aim or that someone who uses CTE can do something that someone who does not use it can't do.
Mark
We don't really need more examples to convince us that CTE is used (apparently successfully) by people with absolutely no idea of basic geometry or logic.
Really an unnecessary post or assumption of my intelligence. After trying it last night, I would suggest that anyone who tries it, and can not see geometrically why it works would be the one that lacks a basic knowledge of geometry and logic. I plan on proving it with a video of my own in the hopefully near future. I have a very busy next couple of days, but will try to get it up ASAP.
This is common sense. If I shoot a ball CTE at 45 degrees, I will hit a certain contact point on the ball. If I then change the angle to 50 degrees, and shoot CTE, the contact point WILL NOT be the same spot, and will continue to change as the degrees change. Go down on a table and sight it for yourself. It is obvious.
CTE works because that contact point will change with each degree change, and the resulting contact point still lines you up with the pocket, at least within a certain range of degrees. Once you are out of that range, an adjustment needs to be made, hence the 1 tip adjustment and pivot. Just as it worked for a range of degrees with the original CTE sighting, it will now work for a range of degrees with an adjustment inside the CB, and for another set of degrees with an adjustment outside the center of the CB. It so happens that these three ranges cover most of the shots on the table.
Ok, bear with me.
You have 3 cueballs, and 3 object balls that correspond to each particular cueball.
Spot cueball is shooting at the 3.
The A cueball is shooting at the 4.
And B cueball is shooting at the 5.
Let us just assume that we have a device (maybe a magic rack with balls on each end of the diamond) that keeps the cueballs the exact same distance from their respective object balls.
And assume we have another device to keep them all exactly on the same line that runs right down the middle of the table.
Since each cueball is equidistant from each object ball, it's safe to say that the outermost edge is exactly the same for each shot.
Just look at this picture that Spidey posted on his blog. (see below)
(Spidey, if you would like me to take it down, please let me know)
In that picture, it shows you that you are aiming at the edge of the object ball, and there are no reference points around.
Back to my picture.
Since all 3 shots are on the exact same line and the same distance from each other, the edge of the object ball has to be the same for all 3.
If CTE effectively pockets the 3 ball, how can CTE effectively pocket the 4 and 5 ball, instead of firing them into the rail on the same angle as the 3, as i have shown?
Now i am sure that someone will argue that it's all about the pivot, and that the 5 is thick, and that the 3 and 4 are thin, or that the 4 and 5 are thick, and the 3 is thin, but either way you have 2 shots that have the exact same point of aim (outermost edge), and the same pivot, so how does CTE pocket the balls?
And on that note, if you want all 3 balls to be thin cuts, how come the 5 doesn't get chopped in the side?
From my perspective, if you have the same shot, on the same line, with the same distance between balls, the point of aim is the same, but the end result cannot be the same.
If CTE makes the 3 ball, the 4 ball will fire it into the rail.
If people want to argue 3 pivots, one for thick, one for thin, and one for very thin, since i don't have 2 very thin shots set up just add 2 more shots further down the center line equidistant from each other, and explain to me how CTE makes them both go. (it would still be the exact same outmost edge of the ball you are lining up and therefore, the same exact exit angle)
Please do not include the word feel, or judgment, or anything subjective in your answer, as that will be treated as non significant.
If someone can come up with something mathematical that can explain it, that would be nice, (how pivot changes the shot by X degrees, etc. etc.) but i'm not keeping my fingers crossed.
Otherwise, i will continue to believe that CTE doesn't have a factual basis for the results that people swear by.
Superstar,
I agree that the contact point on the ball would be the same for each shot if you sighted CTE, however the angle to the pocket would not be the same. In your example, the angle has changed enough that you would not sight CTE and shoot, you would have to perform a pivot, as is the system, and would then be in line with the pocket.
However one's cue is oriented before the pivot, the right pivot position is the intersection of the cue line with a line coming from the center of the ghostball through the center of the cueball. Here are reposts of two graphs which show how it varies with cut angle for a CB-OB separation of 18". The middle curve of each one is the correct distance, with the surrounding curves showing the margin of error needed to send the OB off within 2 degrees (adjacent) and 5 degrees (outermost). They are anything but intuitive.
They're based on an initial CTE setup, then a half-ball parallel shift prior to pivoting. For cut angles between about 20-40 degrees the pivot distance is beyond the end of the cue. If the graphs were extended vertically, you'd see distances of hundreds of feet, approaching infinity as you near 30 degrees, although the margin of error becomes very large too. But I don't see that it does you much good to have it at, say, 500', plus or minus 200'.
The pivot distance, and range of pivot distances, can be cut down by using an apparent (focal plane) parallel shift rather than a true parallel shift on the table itself. Lamas has referred to it several times while discussing CTCP (center to contact point, instead of edge). But you still have a non-intuitive set of curves, and if you use a fixed pivot location you only generate one or two cut angles for a specific CB-OB separation.
Now maybe the full descriptions of CTE will address this, but the only way around it, as I see it, is to re-introduce ghostball or one of its close cousins. That would negate the raison d' etre and putative virtue of this (these) systems.
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?
... I would suggest that anyone who tries it, and can not see geometrically why it works would be the one that lacks a basic knowledge of geometry and logic. ...
mantis -- You are using one tip of offset to the inside or outside, because Dr. Dave copied and posted someone's writeup that says to do it that way.
You should be advised that other proponents use an offset that is different from one tip. An offset of 1 1/8" (i.e., all the way to the edge of the CB) is used by some, including, I think, Dave Segal. Hal Houle has said to at least one student that the size of the offset doesn't matter.
But doesn't the final aim after pivoting to center depend to some extent on the size of the pre-pivot offset?
The statement of yours that I quoted above is quite a stretch for someone with one day of experience using CTE, and a particular version of CTE to which some other (and more experienced) proponents would not subscribe.
Go back and look at the end of the video. Can you see the 2 balls on the table reflecting in the foil???? That would be a NO!!!!!! No reflection or at least not enough to make out any thing...it is fanfolded and wrinkled texture. I shot 9 balls in about 1 minute 30 seconds if you take out moving the 8 out of the pocket.
I can promise you I was not looking at any thing but the object ball - Cue ball and letting my minds eye see the pocket.....
You can't explain it so it must not be true?
Sounds like another argument that is going on right now!!!!
Like I said this is not a true blind test... I can see the end rail (my side)and part of the side rails, that gives me enough information to make 6 out of 9, and actually if I had slowed down my speed 2 of the misses could have went. But It proves NOTHING!!! except this and Dave's video are parlor tricks....
Both these shots are thinner than half ball, so I assume they're both "thin" shots in CTE terms. That means you shift and pivot exactly the same way for both, right? If you shift and pivot the same way, how does the cut angle change?
This is a different Mike replying to your post. :wink: I've shot for many years using feel, ghostball, etc. I learned Stan's Pro One and tried to incorporate it into my game. After an adjustment period I realized I could now find the aiming line on shots I previously had problems making. What an advantage! But what about my "feel" game? Was I supposed to throw it away and completely go with Cte? After all, I didn't need a new aiming system to pocket balls I could make 99.9% of the time.
My game was already at a level where if I didn't break and run out on an average table I was not doing something right. That "something" was usually mixing dominant eyes (different thread) and not lining up correctly on the shot. This is where I realized Pro One/Cte had another use, especially for the experienced feel shooters that were playing at an advanced level. Old dogs and new tricks is not popular with players that don't want to scrap years of playing experience for the latest aiming craze.
Using Cte as a training tool hasn't really been discussed. The idea of using it to improve the mental routines we use to approach each shot has. The level of focus and concentration improves, but what about the added benefit of seeing the correct angle/setup? You can pull the trigger after you pivot to this alignment or you can pause for a second or two and really look at it and try to burn it into the memory banks. I actually stop and do a system check when I have the aiming line. It tells me immediately if it feels right or not. If it doesn't, why? If it doesn't feel right I will shoot it anyway. If the ball goes in I reset the shot and look at it again. I see where my aiming problems are and catalogue the shot angles for future reference.
I now use Cte to supplement my aiming and double check my alignment instead of completely switching over to it. I've found my shotmaking has improved which allows me to think more about position play. On the bad days when you feel like you're playing 9 ball on a billiard table, I switch completely over to Cte. I just pay attention to my alignment and setup for each shot. After a period of time I can usually get back on track and get in my rhythm once again. Cte is not silly to me.
This is a different Mike replying to your post. :wink: I've shot for many years using feel, ghostball, etc. I learned Stan's Pro One and tried to incorporate it into my game. After an adjustment period I realized I could now find the aiming line on shots I previously had problems making. What an advantage! But what about my "feel" game? Was I supposed to throw it away and completely go with Cte? After all, I didn't need a new aiming system to pocket balls I could make 99.9% of the time.
My game was already at a level where if I didn't break and run out on an average table I was not doing something right. That "something" was usually mixing dominant eyes (different thread) and not lining up correctly on the shot. This is where I realized Pro One/Cte had another use, especially for the experienced feel shooters that were playing at an advanced level. Old dogs and new tricks is not popular with players that don't want to scrap years of playing experience for the latest aiming craze.
Using Cte as a training tool hasn't really been discussed. The idea of using it to improve the mental routines we use to approach each shot has. The level of focus and concentration improves, but what about the added benefit of seeing the correct angle/setup? You can pull the trigger after you pivot to this alignment or you can pause for a second or two and really look at it and try to burn it into the memory banks. I actually stop and do a system check when I have the aiming line. It tells me immediately if it feels right or not. If it doesn't, why? If it doesn't feel right I will shoot it anyway. If the ball goes in I reset the shot and look at it again. I see where my aiming problems are and catalogue the shot angles for future reference.
I now use Cte to supplement my aiming and double check my alignment instead of completely switching over to it. I've found my shotmaking has improved which allows me to think more about position play. On the bad days when you feel like you're playing 9 ball on a billiard table, I switch completely over to Cte. I just pay attention to my alignment and setup for each shot. After a period of time I can usually get back on track and get in my rhythm once again. Cte is not silly to me.
Ok, now I'm getting scared. I can<and do> understand how people who don't know how to pocket balls<usually beginers, but some people play for years and never figure it out> can benifit from one of these "systems".
But you sound like someone who can play more than a little. How is it that you come up against shots that you don't know how to hit????.
I seriously doubt that I am some undocumented ball aiming genius, but what am I to make of all these war stories - and test shots, both monitored and not, demonstrating that capable players regularly encounter
shots they don't have a clue where to hit?
I never don't know where to hit the ball - I all too often fail to hit the proper target, but it isn't ever because I don't know where it is.
. I think this is a "sore spot" with some of the debaters on this thread.
