CTE at long distances

sacman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
CTE users: I usually play on 9' tables and occasionally on a 10' table. For a shot that is, say 7 diamonds between CB and OB, how well does CTE work? I can barely see the center of the OB from that distance let alone try to align CTA and CTE.:(
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I'm not a CTE user, but I think I can answer this. If not, I'm sure I'll get corrected. Apparently, when the CB is that far away from the OB, you have to make it work. Lol
Seriously though, I believe there's​ a slight change in the line to A. I sketched it out and it looks like you'd have to initially get the line from right of center CB (about a tip) to A on the OB. This line converges with the aim line (center cueball to center ghostball) about 5 inches behind the CB. So a manual pivot point (bridge hand) would have to be there. Or you can do that "sweep" thing and come right down into the aim line. Now let's hear it from the folks that have mastered CTE. I'd like to know if I'm close to getting it right, or if I should've stuck to reading instead of replying.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm not a CTE user, but I think I can answer this. If not, I'm sure I'll get corrected. Apparently, when the CB is that far away from the OB, you have to make it work. Lol
Seriously though, I believe there's​ a slight change in the line to A. I sketched it out and it looks like you'd have to initially get the line from right of center CB (about a tip) to A on the OB. This line converges with the aim line (center cueball to center ghostball) about 5 inches behind the CB. So a manual pivot point (bridge hand) would have to be there. Or you can do that "sweep" thing and come right down into the aim line. Now let's hear it from the folks that have mastered CTE. I'd like to know if I'm close to getting it right, or if I should've stuck to reading instead of replying.


It doesn't work at long distances for the same reasons it doesn't work at short distances.

On every shot a player need to blend CB hit, speed, RPMs, and elevation. CTE, and it's variants, do not provide a solution for doing all that.

A player must become accustomed to setting up in a consistent, reliable manner, and using that platform to take all those variables into consideration and generate an accurate stroke that will deliver the CB to the desired position on the table. All the crazy DVDs, videos, and books in the world cannot provide enough mumbo gumbo to give you a path to performing well as would a consistent PSR, which makes aiming an afterthought.

Pool is science but it is also artistry.

Lou Figueroa
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It doesn't work at long distances for the same reasons it doesn't work at short distances.

On every shot a player need to blend CB hit, speed, RPMs, and elevation. CTE, and it's variants, do not provide a solution for doing all that.

A player must become accustomed to setting up in a consistent, reliable manner, and using that platform to take all those variables into consideration and generate an accurate stroke that will deliver the CB to the desired position on the table. All the crazy DVDs, videos, and books in the world cannot provide enough mumbo gumbo to give you a path to performing well as would a consistent PSR, which makes aiming an afterthought.

Pool is science but it is also artistry.

Lou Figueroa

CTE is all about making you set up in a consistent PSR. In fact it simplifies the aiming process and allows you to play your best pool.
Your assumptions of CTE are absurd.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
CTE is all about making you set up in a consistent PSR. In fact it simplifies the aiming process and allows you to play your best pool.
Your assumptions of CTE are absurd.


I have had you on Ignore for probably close to, oh, three years. You know this.

But curiosity got the better of me and I looked at this post, and then your posting history. Just looking at the first page of your posting history -- about a third of your posts are shots at me, to which I have never responded.

Though something I rarely do, I must, regrettably, report this to the mods.

Lou Figueroa
you are back
on Ignore
 

One Pocket John

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
CTE users: I usually play on 9' tables and occasionally on a 10' table. For a shot that is, say 7 diamonds between CB and OB, how well does CTE work? I can barely see the center of the OB from that distance let alone try to align CTA and CTE.:(

DVD2 Chapter 15 will fix your issue.

I also was having the same issue until I revisited the chapter.

Hang in there.

John
 
Last edited:

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
CTE users: I usually play on 9' tables and occasionally on a 10' table. For a shot that is, say 7 diamonds between CB and OB, how well does CTE work? I can barely see the center of the OB from that distance let alone try to align CTA and CTE.:(

Mechanically it still works the same. Obviously longer shots may be more difficult to align, regardless of your aiming system. But I stick with the system and do just fine. Lou isn't wrong about all the other nuances of pool, but we already know this. It's an aiming forum, not a "how to play pool" forum.
 

sacman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Mechanically it still works the same. Obviously longer shots may be more difficult to align, regardless of your aiming system. But I stick with the system and do just fine. Lou isn't wrong about all the other nuances of pool, but we already know this. It's an aiming forum, not a "how to play pool" forum.

Thanks Mohrt.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have had you on Ignore for probably close to, oh, three years. You know this.

But curiosity got the better of me and I looked at this post, and then your posting history. Just looking at the first page of your posting history -- about a third of your posts are shots at me, to which I have never responded.

Though something I rarely do, I must, regrettably, report this to the mods.

Lou Figueroa
you are back
on Ignore

Report away. I said nothing wrong. Just pointed out how how your opinion of CTE is wrong. If you ever truly learned CTE from an experienced instructor you would already know that though.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm not a CTE user, but I think I can answer this. If not, I'm sure I'll get corrected. Apparently, when the CB is that far away from the OB, you have to make it work. Lol
Seriously though, I believe there's​ a slight change in the line to A. I sketched it out and it looks like you'd have to initially get the line from right of center CB (about a tip) to A on the OB. This line converges with the aim line (center cueball to center ghostball) about 5 inches behind the CB. So a manual pivot point (bridge hand) would have to be there. Or you can do that "sweep" thing and come right down into the aim line. Now let's hear it from the folks that have mastered CTE. I'd like to know if I'm close to getting it right, or if I should've stuck to reading instead of replying.

Sketching it out will almost always look wrong because it really isn't a 2 dimensional system, yet aiming with CTE as Stan instructs almost always looks right. Listening to absurd comments from people who have never even used the system is pointless. If they actually worked at it a bit they would see how foolish they sound. If they don't need to work at it, then they are wasting alot of time trying to keep others from benefiting from it. Did I mention how foolish they sound?
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
I have had you on Ignore for probably close to, oh, three years. You know this.

But curiosity got the better of me and I looked at this post, and then your posting history. Just looking at the first page of your posting history -- about a third of your posts are shots at me, to which I have never responded.

Though something I rarely do, I must, regrettably, report this to the mods.

Lou Figueroa
you are back
on Ignore

The Ignore function for a specific user you claim never to see is a total load of crap. You know this.

You can see every post by a blocked name when you are LOGGED OUT. Ignore does not work unless you are LOGGED IN. If you were logged in at all times your name would show up as logged in with all the others who are on the forum throughout the day or night, but it's not. Which means you do LOG OUT when you aren't posting but read and lurk everything without logging in. Then all posts and users are visible.

It would be interesting to see your percentage of posts starting from RSB 20 years ago up to now on AZ blasting CTE, Hal, Stan, other members who use it with all of your misconceptions, lies, and venom.

Forget percentage, the total number of derogatory posts would be mind boggling.

I guess you won't see this post either because I'm also on Ignore. Yeah, RIGHT!
LMAO.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Sketching it out will almost always look wrong because it really isn't a 2 dimensional system, yet aiming with CTE as Stan instructs almost always looks right. Listening to absurd comments from people who have never even used the system is pointless. If they actually worked at it a bit they would see how foolish they sound. If they don't need to work at it, then they are wasting alot of time trying to keep others from benefiting from it. Did I mention how foolish they sound?

There are no mysterious visual effects​ occurring with CTE. Each eye captures​ 2-dimensional images, then the brain basically triangulates the two sets of data in order to develop an estimated depth perception. The CTE system is based on the convergence of lines, which can easily be shown on paper. Anything beyond the geography is purely subjective.

Back in the 1990's Hal Houle put CTE out in the open, but prior to that many players were already using a parallel shift or a pivot similar to Hal's CTE, like SAM or the "quarter system". Hal used 15-30-45 degree points on the OB, which is the A B and C in today's CTE. It involved lining up a line from the CB edge to one of these points, then PIVOTING to CB center, a method which can easily be illustrated/sketched. Stan has improved the method by incorporating it into your stance and shot approach, favoring a sweep instead of a pivot. Regardless, CTE is not a visual aiming phenomenon. Aiming is an art, and unless your method is instinct (rote), it can be shown on paper.

Arguing over the mechanics of CTE is similar to arguing over religious beliefs. Due to non-objective aspects, believers and non-believers rarely find common ground. But I say to each their own. If it works for you (religion or CTE) then go for it.

I was sincerely trying to offer a remedy for Sacman's question about longer shots. Using the original CTE system (before visual sweeps came into it), a player has to make it work. Because, from a distance, if you line CB edge to any point on the OB, A or B or C, then pivot to center CB, you'll be sending the CB on a path that doesn't contact the object ball. So there must be a trick to making it work, apparently on Stan's DVD2.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are no mysterious visual effects​ occurring with CTE. Each eye captures​ 2-dimensional images, then the brain basically triangulates the two sets of data in order to develop an estimated depth perception. The CTE system is based on the convergence of lines, which can easily be shown on paper. Anything beyond the geography is purely subjective.

Back in the 1990's Hal Houle put CTE out in the open, but prior to that many players were already using a parallel shift or a pivot similar to Hal's CTE, like SAM or the "quarter system". Hal used 15-30-45 degree points on the OB, which is the A B and C in today's CTE. It involved lining up a line from the CB edge to one of these points, then PIVOTING to CB center, a method which can easily be illustrated/sketched. Stan has improved the method by incorporating it into your stance and shot approach, favoring a sweep instead of a pivot. Regardless, CTE is not a visual aiming phenomenon. Aiming is an art, and unless your method is instinct (rote), it can be shown on paper.

Arguing over the mechanics of CTE is similar to arguing over religious beliefs. Due to non-objective aspects, believers and non-believers rarely find common ground. But I say to each their own. If it works for you (religion or CTE) then go for it.

I was sincerely trying to offer a remedy for Sacman's question about longer shots. Using the original CTE system (before visual sweeps came into it), a player has to make it work. Because, from a distance, if you line CB edge to any point on the OB, A or B or C, then pivot to center CB, you'll be sending the CB on a path that doesn't contact the object ball. So there must be a trick to making it work, apparently on Stan's DVD2.

The difference, obviously, between someone who does use it, and someone who does not. If it is mathematically correct then every angle on the table would demand a different aimpoint, yet most shots can be made with only 3, or 4, whether you use the pivot method or the sweeps, and Stan would simply be selling aiming charts.
 

sacman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are no mysterious visual effects​ occurring with CTE. Each eye captures​ 2-dimensional images, then the brain basically triangulates the two sets of data in order to develop an estimated depth perception. The CTE system is based on the convergence of lines, which can easily be shown on paper. Anything beyond the geography is purely subjective.

Back in the 1990's Hal Houle put CTE out in the open, but prior to that many players were already using a parallel shift or a pivot similar to Hal's CTE, like SAM or the "quarter system". Hal used 15-30-45 degree points on the OB, which is the A B and C in today's CTE. It involved lining up a line from the CB edge to one of these points, then PIVOTING to CB center, a method which can easily be illustrated/sketched. Stan has improved the method by incorporating it into your stance and shot approach, favoring a sweep instead of a pivot. Regardless, CTE is not a visual aiming phenomenon. Aiming is an art, and unless your method is instinct (rote), it can be shown on paper.

Arguing over the mechanics of CTE is similar to arguing over religious beliefs. Due to non-objective aspects, believers and non-believers rarely find common ground. But I say to each their own. If it works for you (religion or CTE) then go for it.

I was sincerely trying to offer a remedy for Sacman's question about longer shots. Using the original CTE system (before visual sweeps came into it), a player has to make it work. Because, from a distance, if you line CB edge to any point on the OB, A or B or C, then pivot to center CB, you'll be sending the CB on a path that doesn't contact the object ball. So there must be a trick to making it work, apparently on Stan's DVD2.

Thanks for the information. I appreciate all efforts to help me better understand and learn CTE. I am new to it. Those who say it is a simple alternative to hours and hours of just hitting balls by feel (aiming with the cue ball / learning the correct alignment) or some other specific method of aiming don't have a clue. I expect CTE to take considerable practice and time: PSR with visuals & sweep. My stroke (correct stance, 'V'-grip - per Lee Brett, various bridges - usually closed - supporting nearly perfect backward and forward movement to follow-through and stop) is dead on. This is per what others have observed. Stroke is not an issue*. I now have to learn a few adjustments to those techniques: Pro-One feet shuffle to correctly come into full stance and bridge offset to line up with center CB.

Those who doubt the effectiveness cannot deny how well Stevie is playing this tournament using CTE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQpzW8jyWf0


*To improve my stroke I actually do what Ben Hogan did for his golf swing (see video): practice in slow motion, only for pool - practice ball-address to stroke-completion in slow motion using a ruler to gauge swerve and a side mirror to gauge horizontal straightness (level). It is extremely boring but the results have been mind blowing at the table. Slow motion teaches muscle memory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5vTfi0gtZ8
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
My only negative observation with CTE is this: A player with a good stroke may have lousy visualization skills, as far as determining cut angles. If that player expects CTE to be user-friendly, meaning a system that will allow him to use his good stroke and quickly begin pocketing balls, he or she will be very disappointed because the system does not provide immediate results. I have friends that have bought into this method, only to discover that it takes weeks to months before it starts clicking for them, if it ever does. It's because of the varying changes in the distance between CB and OB. That speaks volumes about the subjective nature of it. If it takes a lot of practice and repitition to get your brain locked on it, it's called rote, which is old-school learning.

Though I'm sure using CTE could provide a quicker learning curve for those that stick with it, a truly objective method for aiming would not require a player to spend hours upon hours trying to find consistent results. Now, if you have a good stroke and I say "aim here", while pointing to a spot on the OB or table or wherever, and you do it and get immediate results, that would be an objective aiming method.

When it comes to aiming, there are two ways to learn: Rote or System. Pick a system and work on it for an hour. If it doesn't provide positive results, pick another one. If that one doesn't provide results, then try another. If you can't seem to find one that shows immediate potential, pick one (the easiest to understand would be good idea) and stick with it until it becomes natural. Eventually you'll get it working because your brain will begin to compensate for all the little things that seemed unworkable when you started it. In the end, the whole process ends up being a branch right out of the old rote tree after all.

Sorry to go off topic, Sacman.
 
Last edited:

anbukev

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
My only negative observation with CTE is this: A player with a good stroke may have lousy visualization skills, as far as determining cut angles. If that player expects CTE to be user-friendly, meaning a system that will allow him to use his good stroke and quickly begin pocketing balls, he or she will be very disappointed because the system does not provide immediate results. I have friends that have bought into this method, only to discover that it takes weeks to months before it starts clicking for them, if it ever does. It's because of the varying changes in the distance between CB and OB. That speaks volumes about the subjective nature of it. If it takes a lot of practice and repitition to get your brain locked on it, it's called rote, which is old-school learning.

Though I'm sure using CTE could provide a quicker learning curve for those that stick with it, a truly objective method for aiming would not require a player to spend hours upon hours trying to find consistent results. Now, if you have a good stroke and I say "aim here", while pointing to a spot on the OB or table or wherever, and you do it and get immediate results, that would be an objective aiming method.

When it comes to aiming, there are two ways to learn: Rote or System. Pick a system and work on it for an hour. If it doesn't provide positive results, pick another one. If that one doesn't provide results, then try another. If you can't seem to find one that shows immediate potential, pick one (the easiest to understand would be good idea) and stick with it until it becomes natural. Eventually you'll get it working because your brain will begin to compensate for all the little things that seemed unworkable when you started it. In the end, the whole process ends up being a branch right out of the old rote tree after all.

Sorry to go off topic, Sacman.

If you know the shot line then why bother with pivoting. Just step straight into the shot line. I feel that its' main purpose is to establish a concrete preshot routine. If it works for you that's great. If it doesn't then find something else that suits you.
 

8pack

They call me 2 county !
Silver Member
My only negative observation with CTE is this: A player with a good stroke may have lousy visualization skills, as far as determining cut angles. If that player expects CTE to be user-friendly, meaning a system that will allow him to use his good stroke and quickly begin pocketing balls, he or she will be very disappointed because the system does not provide immediate results. I have friends that have bought into this method, only to discover that it takes weeks to months before it starts clicking for them, if it ever does. It's because of the varying changes in the distance between CB and OB. That speaks volumes about the subjective nature of it. If it takes a lot of practice and repitition to get your brain locked on it, it's called rote, which is old-school learning.

Though I'm sure using CTE could provide a quicker learning curve for those that stick with it, a truly objective method for aiming would not require a player to spend hours upon hours trying to find consistent results. Now, if you have a good stroke and I say "aim here", while pointing to a spot on the OB or table or wherever, and you do it and get immediate results, that would be an objective aiming method.

When it comes to aiming, there are two ways to learn: Rote or System. Pick a system and work on it for an hour. If it doesn't provide positive results, pick another one. If that one doesn't provide results, then try another. If you can't seem to find one that shows immediate potential, pick one (the easiest to understand would be good idea) and stick with it until it becomes natural. Eventually you'll get it working because your brain will begin to compensate for all the little things that seemed unworkable when you started it. In the end, the whole process ends up being a branch right out of the old rote tree after all.

Sorry to go off topic, Sacman.
Cte privides a quicker learning curve...just the opposite.
Cte has been around for awhile now, an many still having problems. Lou nails it on the head with his post.
You don't understand what it takes to make the ball until you understand that. That being said, add that to cte an you have a much longer learning curve. Lets be honest.
 
Top