The folly of proving CTE

IamCalvin06

IamCalvin06

Yang "The Son of Pool"
Silver Member
I get that some ppl want to see CTE proven thru math. We all want to know how something works on some level.

The main controversy stems from those who want to disprove something bc it goes against their so called "beliefs" or bc they themselves can't or aren't willing to do it.

Obviously I stand on the side of CTE, Hal and Stan's work on the topic has been tremendous. Let me start by saying this upfront though. Although I know the ins and outs of the system it does not mean that I'm a world beater or that I can make every shot everytime.

Knowing the system is one thing execution is another. But the main point is that what Stan has discovered is so revolutionary and profound that I think it's a bit of shock and if ur not ready for it then u should probably wait till ur a little more grown up to learn it.

I see a lot of ppl bring up fractional aiming and ghost ball as a direct comparison to CTE and what it represents. Ghost all and fractional aiming is a physics/math explanation of what occurs at the pool table when spheres collide.

CTE or ProOne is an explanation of how the human body and vision execute a pool shot. No different from an explanation of how to stand or stroke a ball.

I find that the argument everyone seems to use of fractions or ghost ball is how the body sees and executes is ridiculous. It's the same as if a student driver was handed a manual of how the car engine works and be expected to drive based on that.

Stan's work is the first and only to explain how the body is able to make a pool shot. What most of the world sees when they line up a shot is pretty close to the precise visuals that we use in CTE. But why aren't they able to make the ball aside from stroke errors? Bc what most of us see at ball address is the shotline without a calculation for CIT or throw.

When u don't know how to move into the CB you are essentially hitting the ball where u want but that doesn't account for throw. Therefore you miss and are perplexed as to why bc u swear that's where it supposed to be contacted.

When u say that ghostball or fractions is the way to aim then why hasn't anyone said how to arrive at that aim? How do u move into the shot? How do I line up the edge of the CB to make that perfect overlap? And once I find that how or when do I adjust for the CIT?

See the folly in the argument? CTE ProOne is a professional aiming system. It's what the pros are doing whether they know it or not. Just the same as professionals are making the spheres collide at the perfect fraction or ghostball.

One is physics and math. The other is the human body. I never heard an argument that a NBA player must be calculating the arc and trajectory of a jumper. Yes that's what's occurring but how he arrives at that point is purely physical.

So yeah,... I'm sure most will read half of this post and go back to their folly but for the few that make it to end that's what's occurring on its most basic level.
 
IamCalvin06 said:
.......
I see a lot of ppl bring up fractional aiming and ghost ball as a direct comparison to CTE and what it represents. Ghost all and fractional aiming is a physics/math explanation of what occurs at the pool table when spheres collide.

CTE or ProOne is an explanation of how the human body and vision execute a pool shot. No different from an explanation of how to stand or stroke a ball.

I find that the argument everyone seems to use of fractions or ghost ball is how the body sees and executes is ridiculous. It's the same as if a student driver was handed a manual of how the car engine works and be expected to drive based on that.
.......
Click to expand...

People see and think differently.

Some, like me, can see and visualize very well. I remember in school a teacher calling it your minds eye. The ability to visualize in the mind. Nothing to do with intelligence. Just a way some people think.

I can see the line the OB will have to roll to go in the pocket. I can also see the line the CB will have to roll to impact the OB and send it into the pocket.

I can see and visualize these lines easily. The line the CB rolls is my reference for alignment of my stick and my vision. For throw or CIT, I visualize lines to cheat the pocket.

I had know idea what ghost ball or fractional aiming was. I just saw lines. Someone told me what I do is a type of ghost ball aiming.

If people have problems seeing and visualizing lines, maybe they have to find something other than ghost ball aiming, like CTE.
 
Last edited:
The Folly of Mathematical Proof

Calvin,
I likely don't have time to address your complete statement but I will make a few comments before I run off to other things.

Stan and Hal discovered something very interesting that is for certain. Your assessment of other people and how they should put on their big boy pants so to speak and learn it is a bit presumptive.

You use it and you miss balls if I am correct. We all miss balls. I think the division of people is based on aiming systems comes between a lot of people who do see how to cut the ball and some of those who need the help CTE has to offer.

I would guess that people who make most of their shots without CTE see something that is usable for them to comprehend that some of us don't.

I fully agree proving this is mathematically correct is completely meaningless there are too many human factors in it to prove much of anything. If it makes shots its correct that's they way I see it. What is going to be considered correct?

As far as your comments that people who are in opposition of CTE being the ones that want it disproven or proven mathematically I think you are way off base there. I think that it would benefit or is seen as a benefit if CTE were somehow proven mathematically correct but I just don't see that anything with all those human factors that cause misses will be provable. Is not the making of a shot proof enough? I would think so. Now we are left with how people fare with using it in real application. If they are satisfied and their games improve I would say that's proof enough. If they continue to improve that is all that matters.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount how people see things. When asked by a reporter on a Youtube I saw once....Efren said....I just use the edge of the ball to tell me what to do.....that's an old school explanation that says he sees it visually and many of us do. That may have very well come from hamb but its working for him. I do not believe that Efren uses CTE. I believe he sees and understands the shot line and makes the adjustments he needs to for spin. CTE does not plot courses for the use of spin as you so mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Good post, thanks.

Don't all aiming systems arrive at the ghost ball which is mathematically correct?
 
All Roads lead the same place.

LAMas said:
Good post, thanks.

Don't all aiming systems arrive at the ghost ball which is mathematically correct?
Click to expand...

I would think so. So if that is all that is left I would say this would make Duckies Ghost Ball Contact Patch System is just as correct as CTE if it results in a ball being pocketed. In truth what would be more correct is the method that is easiest for one to use and learn from. All roads ending up in the same place means the easiest road could be the best road but that is my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Of course

ps611846 said:
Ghost ball for a "stun shot" is the same as it is for "slow roll" ??? There is no ghost ball thing.
Click to expand...

Of course not which means automatically there is more than one answer and its hard to arrive at one answer if the width of the pocket is wider than the width of a ball which means multiple contact points could be used for the result of a pocketed ball. If this weren't true it would be impossible to cheat a pocket and we know that happens all of the time.
 
336Robin said:
Of course not which means automatically there is more than one answer and its hard to arrive at one answer if the width of the pocket is wider than the width of a ball which means multiple contact points could be used for the result of a pocketed ball. If this weren't true it would be impossible to cheat a pocket and we know that happens all of the time.
Click to expand...

This is so glaringly obvious to me that I can't believe it even needs stating, and yet it seems to need to be... over and over again, by many people.

If the perfect alignment of two balls with center pocket (ghost ball concept) is not mathematically correct because shooting conditions vary, how can an elaborate aiming system avoid the physics behind these same varying conditions?

More to the point, if a particular alignment in some aiming system leads to a "slight over-cut" for certain angles and relies on throw to pocket the ball from that point, how can that alignment account for differences in speed and spin, coupled with the frictional variance in ball-to-ball collisions (as recently demonstrated with convincing evidence by Dave Alciatore et al)?
 
336Robin said:
Calvin,
I likely don't have time to address your complete statement but I will make a few comments before I run off to other things.

Stan and Hal discovered something very interesting that is for certain. Your assessment of other people and how they should put on their big boy pants so to speak and learn it is a bit presumptive.

You use it and you miss balls if I am correct. We all miss balls. I think the division of people is based on aiming systems comes between a lot of people who do see how to cut the ball and some of those who need the help CTE has to offer.

I would guess that people who make most of their shots without CTE see something that is usable for them to comprehend that some of us don't.

I fully agree proving this is mathematically correct is completely meaningless there are too many human factors in it to prove much of anything. If it makes shots its correct that's they way I see it. What is going to be considered correct?

As far as your comments that people who are in opposition of CTE being the ones that want it disproven or proven mathematically I think you are way off base there. I think that it would benefit or is seen as a benefit if CTE were somehow proven mathematically correct but I just don't see that anything with all those human factors that cause misses will be provable. Is not the making of a shot proof enough? I would think so. Now we are left with how people fare with using it in real application. If they are satisfied and their games improve I would say that's proof enough. If they continue to improve that is all that matters.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount how people see things. When asked by a reporter on a Youtube I saw once....Efren said....I just use the edge of the ball to tell me what to do.....that's an old school explanation that says he sees it visually and many of us do. That may have very well come from hamb but its working for him. I do not believe that Efren uses CTE. I believe he sees and understands the shot line and makes the adjustments he needs to for spin. CTE does not plot courses for the use of spin as you so mentioned
Click to expand...


Good response but the main point to me is ppl are arguing about two different things. However, I never stated the above statement in bold.
 
Debate/arguments about anything never end as long as there are people who don't care about the truth, they only care about winning the debate/argument.

Besides, many times there is no one truth or one universal best method. If it works for you, great. If my method doesn't work for you, great. Now let's have fun and shoot some pool.
 
My Ghost Ball Contact Patch is not about aiming.

It is about understanding the affects the different ball positions will have on a shot and what is and is not possible.

It like understanding the ballistics of a bullet and how a rifle fires that bullet.

But that does nothing on knowing when to pull the trigger. That requires using the knowledge of the ballistics and through repetition of shooting at a variety of targets under varying conditions to understand how that knowledge is to be used in the real world.

As I wrote earlier about shooting bottles in a moving river. It take sometime to get the hang of it. My first shots were not on mark. Even though I understand the ballistics.

Like I've stated many times, it is not the system used, but how the well the system is used that matter, meaning how well the person using the cue stick understands the system they are using.
 
Sloppy Pockets said:
This is so glaringly obvious to me that I can't believe it even needs stating, and yet it seems to need to be... over and over again, by many people.

If the perfect alignment of two balls with center pocket (ghost ball concept) is not mathematically correct because shooting conditions vary, how can an elaborate aiming system avoid the physics behind these same varying conditions?

More to the point, if a particular alignment in some aiming system leads to a "slight over-cut" for certain angles and relies on throw to pocket the ball from that point, how can that alignment account for differences in speed and spin, coupled with the frictional variance in ball-to-ball collisions (as recently demonstrated with convincing evidence by Dave Alciatore et al)?
Click to expand...



What aiming instructors have you studied with?

randyg
 
randyg said:
What aiming instructors have you studied with?

randyg
Click to expand...

???

None. What does that have to do with anything?

I'm just using logic to state that one can't use an argument to refute one thing while using the same argument to explain the success of another thing. Heck, you don't even need to play the game to see the fallacy in this reasoning.
 
IamCalvin06 said:
Good response but the main point to me is ppl are arguing about two different things. However, I never stated the above statement in bold.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right.

Below is what you did say that caused me to make that statement.

Bc what most of us see at ball address is the shotline without a calculation for CIT or throw.

When u don't know how to move into the CB you are essentially hitting the ball where u want but that doesn't account for throw. Therefore you miss and are perplexed as to why bc u swear that's where it supposed to be contacted.

When u say that ghostball or fractions is the way to aim then why hasn't anyone said how to arrive at that aim? How do u move into the shot? How do I line up the edge of the CB to make that perfect overlap? And once I find that how or when do I adjust for the CIT?

The adjustments for CIT are adjustments, it takes adjustments to compensate for squirt and curve. I would have better said that CTE makes no adjustments for other phenomenon that pertain to shots. It is the player that has to do that but you are right you did not say what was bolded but I felt it was the same thing. I apologize if I took it out of context.
 
I'd like to know where anyone has said you never have to make adjustments with CTE? All CTE/Pro One does is takes you to an aim line that has a slight amount of over cut. Dependent upon numerous factors, such as side spin, CIT, ball speed, etc., the shooter may still have to make an adjustment. CTE/Pro One is not the silver bullet that somehow magically solves everything and guarantees the ball will go in. At the same time, it doesn't somehow limit the player in some negative way either.

It's amazing how so many people who have little to no understanding of how CTE/Pro One really works can offer so many opinions about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top