CTE experiment, with civil discussion

[Geometry]

Correct. The pocket orbits around the OB differently--distance and direction for the exact same alignment procedure. The amount is determined by the OB/pocket distance and the direction (which part of the circle the pocket moves) is determined by the CB/OB positioning. I had pages typed up with different examples and I lost it.

Can't tell you how many diagrams I've drawn on paper and then scrunched up trying to get this but with no luck. I would put in the time to draw top notch computer diagrams if I had something to diagram. I even bought a compass so I could draw nice circles.

I feel the same frustration when you are playing an adventure style computer game and am completely stuck and have been stuck for days and days and have gone back and checked everything 100x already. It's past the point of fun to complete frustration.

 

[dr_dave]

I am certain that given the time Dave Segal and Stan Shuffet and Ron Vitello could construct an apparatus that would "aim" using the fractional method of their choice and the resulting cue stick position would be such that it would be on the perfect aiming line.

I would be curious is Spidey, Stan, and/or Ron agree with you. I hope they don't, because I am absolutely sure this is not possible, unless the apparatus includes some fairly complicated vision processing and fine-tune software able to recreate the "subconscious adjustments" involved with varying the initial alignment (as Spidey has suggested) and the pivot (as Stan has suggested). If the apparatus were programmed with the exact CTE procedure, as documented on Spidey's blog, the apparatus would certainly not pocket all three balls in my experiment. I hope this thread has convinced most people of this fact.

Having said this, it is also fact that CTE is a useful "aiming system" that many humans can use effectively. Some of the reasons are documented here.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Why bump a non believers post if you want to get to the bottom of this.

... because this particular non-believers' post was brilliant, and it quite elegantly tells the whole story. I've included it again below so you or others can explain where Mike is wrong:

excerpts from mikepage:

Various people report immediate improvement upon adopting a fractional ball approach.

Others report immediate improvement upon adopting a "pivot" approach.

Here's why.

There are five independent "things" involved with aiming.

(1) the pocket
(2) the object ball
(3) the cue ball
(4) the stick
(5) the cyclopean eye

All 5 are necessary to get the job done.

But the essence of determining the AIM LINE involves just three of these:

the cyclopean eye,
the cueball,
and the object ball

The pocket should be considered BEFORE determining the AIM LINE

The stick should be considered AFTER determining the aim line.

Many aiming perception problems involve, imo, either

(1) keeping the POCKET in the process too long,
(2) or entering the STICK into the process too early

Those with problem (1) are helped by fractional ball approaches.

Those with problem (2) are helped by pivot-style approaches.

A player MUST consider the pocket before determining the aim line. But once the pocket is considered to determine an object ball contact point or a ghost ball location or (along with the cueball) a fullness of hit, there is no more information needed about the pocket. Many players suffer from beig biased by the pocket when they're down on the shot. For those players, focusing on a ball overlap or on a cueball aim point can help a lot.

Here's the other problem. When you are ready to pull the trigger, the STICK LINE and the AIM LINE are one and the same, and they need to be on the CORRECT AIM LINE. But before you are ready to pull the trigger, while you are just starting to get into position, all three are different. Imagine a red laser beam that is fixed on the CORRECT AIM LINE,
and a green laser beam that is wherever you are looking, and a blue laser beam that goes through the center of the stick.

The CORRECT way to aim, imo, is first to get the green laser beam on the red one, and THEN to bring the blue one on board.

If you don't do that, then you are biased by the stick line coming into view. The "almost right" stick line holds no value, but just like the fun-house almost straight walls and floors, we are drawn to them more than we should be.

So try aiming the shot by getting down into position with the stick off to the side and then with the ball-ball aim in view, bring the stick in from the side. Some people are helped a lot by this. It's a matter of not letting the tail wag the dog.

So no, HOW you pivot doesn't matter. There are no magic rotating airpivoting receding hyperspheres.

The emperor is naked.​

 

[dr_dave]

Can anyone tell me why or who said to not take the pocket (or bank or combo) into consideration when lining up a CTE shot?

Several people (Spidey, most prominently) have claimed that the pocket location does not need to be taken into consideration except to determine if a shot is a "thin cut" (less than 30 degrees) or a "thick cut" (more than 30 degrees). The claim is that CTE somehow automatically adjusts for the exact amount of cut necessary to pocket any ball in either of those ranges (0-to-30 and 30-to-90), regardless of the distance between the balls, regardless of the bridge length, and regardless of the required angle to the pocket. I think the main explanation for how this works is (as implied by Stan): "subconscious adjustments." It seems that the CTE approach might provide a framework that helps some people develop their "visual intelligence" and fine-tune their adjustment ability more quickly than if they are using no system. That makes sense to me.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Elephant Man]

Several people (Spidey, most prominently) have claimed that the pocket location does not need to be taken into consideration except to determine if a shot is a "thin cut" (less than 30 degrees) or a "thick cut" (more than 30 degrees). The claim is that CTE somehow automatically adjusts for the exact amount of cut necessary to pocket any ball in either of those ranges (0-to-30 and 30-to-90), regardless of the distance between the balls, regardless of the bridge length, and regardless of the required angle to the pocket. I think the main explanation for how this works is (as implied by Stan): "subconscious adjustments." It seems that the CTE approach might provide a framework that helps some people develop their "visual intelligence" and fine-tune their adjustment ability more quickly than if they are using no system. That makes sense to me.

Regards,
Dave

Thanks for the reply. Would it be too much trouble for anyone to show me where Spidey says that?
Thanks, EM

 

[dr_dave]

Thanks for the reply. Would it be too much trouble for anyone to show me where Spidey says that?
Thanks, EM

Here are two quotes I could find with a quick search, but there are many other similar quotes for many other people:

The only reference you need for the pocket is whether it's thick or thin.

I haven't looked at a pocket in years (other than to make sure the path to it wasn't blocked). All that matters is the CTEL/pivot.

I hope that helps,
Dave

 

[Elephant Man]

Here are two quotes I could find with a quick search, but there are many other similar quotes for many other people:
I hope that helps,
Dave

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
The only reference you need for the pocket is whether it's thick or thin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
I haven't looked at a pocket in years (other than to make sure the path to it wasn't blocked). All that matters is the CTEL/pivot.


Are these statements referring to the CTE line-up, shift, pivot and shot only?

Or do the statements also apply to determining the Edge of CB to Center of OB that you do before that?


Thanks, EM

 

[dr_dave]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
The only reference you need for the pocket is whether it's thick or thin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
I haven't looked at a pocket in years (other than to make sure the path to it wasn't blocked). All that matters is the CTEL/pivot.


Are these statements referring to the CTE line-up, shift, pivot and shot only?

Or do the statements also apply to determining the Edge of CB to Center of OB that you do before that?

I interpreted the statements as applying during the entire CTE aiming process, but I could be wrong.

Regards,
Dave

 

[LAMas]

dr_dave et al,
This diagrams a 1/2 CB lateral, parallel offset of the cue.
The CB is the bottom circle.
The bridge start and pivot locations are below.
The OB to be cut is 12.96" above the CB.
The circle to the right of the OB is the GB
The position of the GB is shown 90, 80 and 70 degrees
The same OB and GB are shown again 8.9" farther away
The original aim line is passing to the right of the GB
The aim line must be moved 2 degrees to the left to hit the new GBs
The new bridge locations are now off of the page
The same OB and GB are shown again another 8.9" farther away
The original aim line is passing even more to the right of the GB
The aim line must be moved 3 degrees to the left to hit the new GBs
I hope this helps to describe a couple of the "500" adjustments

 

[Elephant Man]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
The only reference you need for the pocket is whether it's thick or thin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
I haven't looked at a pocket in years (other than to make sure the path to it wasn't blocked). All that matters is the CTEL/pivot.


Are these statements referring to the CTE line-up, shift, pivot and shot only?

Or do the statements also apply to determining the Edge of CB to Center of OB that you do before that?

I interpreted the statements as applying during the entire CTE aiming process, but I could be wrong.

Regards,
Dave

I think of CTE as the entire aiming system, including the Edge To Center (ETC) at the beginning of the process.

BUT... Is it possible that these statements could be referring to the literal CTE (Center To Edge) part of the process only? And that the ETC part gives you your starting angle?

 

[dr_dave]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
The only reference you need for the pocket is whether it's thick or thin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
I haven't looked at a pocket in years (other than to make sure the path to it wasn't blocked). All that matters is the CTEL/pivot.

I think of CTE as the entire aiming system, including the Edge To Center (ETC) at the beginning of the process.

BUT... Is it possible that these statements could be referring to the literal CTE (Center To Edge) part of the process only? And that the ETC part gives you your starting angle?

That sounds reasonable to me. Then the key is to start with the exact initial alignment needed to create the exact cut angle needed after the pivot, for a given pivot-arc length.

Regards,
Dave

 

[LAMas]

That sounds reasonable to me. Then the key is to start with the exact initial alignment needed to create the exact cut angle needed after the pivot, for a given pivot-arc length.

Regards,
Dave

That's what some of us do without the CTE, offset and pivot
Sorry.

Do you want more large pictures of the "500" adjustments?

 

[cookie man]

FRom mike page.
Here's the other problem. When you are ready to pull the trigger, the STICK LINE and the AIM LINE are one and the same, and they need to be on the CORRECT AIM LINE. But before you are ready to pull the trigger, while you are just starting to get into position, all three are different. Imagine a red laser beam that is fixed on the CORRECT AIM LINE,
and a green laser beam that is wherever you are looking, and a blue laser beam that goes through the center of the stick.

The CORRECT way to aim, imo, is first to get the green laser beam on the red one, and THEN to bring the blue one on board.

answer
What I get out of this is mike thinks the cyclopsean eye should be over the center of the stick, everything in line.I can tell you mine is not always there, sometimes to one side or the other, and sometimes across the stick line(I angle my cue with some shots). He also says to aim ball to ball, to me that is guess work. CTE has direct visual points to work with. His post does not help future discussion of CTE.

 

[AtLarge]

Mike stated that he didn't learn FROM Hal. He said that he was playing on a table beside Hal when Hal was teaching someone else.

You are right that my exuberance is getting ahead of my knowledge. So with that in mind I will back off and let you all figure it out.

I can see that I really have nothing to offer this discussion other than being a cheerleader.

Y'all take now.

John -- see post #115 in this thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=2366329#post2366329. I'm still betting Mike has tried CTE.

And I know you won't totally "back off." Nor would I want you to. Your insights are valuable on all sorts of topics.

 

[Elephant Man]

That sounds reasonable to me. Then the key is to start with the exact initial alignment needed to create the exact cut angle needed after the pivot, for a given pivot-arc length.

Regards,
Dave

Then the key is to start with the exact initial alignment needed (ETC?)

to create the exact cut angle (30 degrees and 1/2 ball offset?)

needed after (Before?) the pivot, for a given pivot-arc length.

 

[Roger Long]

You believe this because you have not learned it.

I have said several times in this thread and other aiming threads that the VALUE to learning a reference point system such as CTE is that the user can then approach almost all shots the same way. Dave Segal has repeated this same statement dozens of times.

So that's A. Now thin cuts and thick cuts and backwards cuts all look like the same shot.

B. is that ball pocketing percentages increase. That's right. Shots which previously were low percentage now become high percentage for the player. Shots which looked impossible now become not only possible but probable. The player gains more consistency.

C. Confidence increases tremendously. Now shots which were faced with fear are no longer scary. They look and feel like any other shot.

D. Your increased ability to pocket balls instills fear in the hearts of your opponents. They can't get away with just leaving you long or thin anymore.

E. Your ability to bank balls increases with the use of an aiming system.

F. You get trained on where the real true aiming line is. No more guessing, no more imagining the ghost ball. No more trying keep your eye on one tiny point. As you use the system it becomes more and more natural to just instantly step into the shot on the right line.

And if all that isn't enough for you then you always have the added value of being part of a club of people who found a better way and were brave enough to stick to it in the face of coordinated negativity towards it.

I'm sorry John, but your explanations didn't really answer my question. I still don't know how to measure increased pocketing percentages or tremendously increased confidence, or any of the other intangibles that a player might claim they benefited from once they started using CTE. I'm looking for improvements through the use of CTE that can actually be measured. The reason I need that is so I can put a value to it in the form of money. Why? Because it's already been proven in these threads that CTE is far too complex to try and explain to novice players, so its true value must be with advanced players and professionals. And what is it that these players use to track their success rate? Money.

Let me give you an example of what I mean: Suppose a player is making $20,000 a year just off of his/her game (no other sources of income counted). Now suppose a CTE instructor tells this player that he/she could increase their pocketing percentage by 10% (a HUGE supposition since this person must already be a very skilled player). Further suppose that the 10% increase in pocketing percentage could be directly transferable to winnings in tournaments or gambling (another HUGE supposition). What would the real value be? It would be $2,000, of course. Would that be enough value to this player after considering the time and money investments involved in learning CTE? Who knows, except the player? Many players might decide that more practice time, using their current aiming methods, would yield greater values.

As far as the intangible benefits (values) go; you had a point with the increased confidence thing, John. I remember years ago when I bought a beautiful new cue at a tournament in N.C. from Joe Blackburn (built by him). I then drove the 700 miles home and immediately jumped into a tough 9-ball tournament without ever hitting a ball with that cue. I won that tournament, and I firmly believe it was because of the increased confidence I gained from owning a new cue. And I know for a fact that CTE had nothing to do with it.

Will we ever reach a point where we can put some measurable values on CTE?

I apologize in advance if this post is off track, Dave.

Roger

 

[JB Cases]

I'm sorry John, but your explanations didn't really answer my question. I still don't know how to measure increased pocketing percentages or tremendously increased confidence, or any of the other intangibles that a player might claim they benefited from once they started using CTE. I'm looking for improvements through the use of CTE that can actually be measured. The reason I need that is so I can put a value to it in the form of money. Why? Because it's already been proven in these threads that CTE is far too complex to try and explain to novice players, so its true value must be with advanced players and professionals. And what is it that these players use to track their success rate? Money.

Let me give you an example of what I mean: Suppose a player is making $20,000 a year just off of his/her game (no other sources of income counted). Now suppose a CTE instructor tells this player that he/she could increase their pocketing percentage by 10% (a HUGE supposition since this person must already be a very skilled player). Further suppose that the 10% increase in pocketing percentage could be directly transferable to winnings in tournaments or gambling (another HUGE supposition). What would the real value be? It would be $2,000, of course. Would that be enough value to this player after considering the time and money investments involved in learning CTE? Who knows, except the player? Many players might decide that more practice time, using their current aiming methods, would yield greater values.

As far as the intangible benefits (values) go; you had a point with the increased confidence thing, John. I remember years ago when I bought a beautiful new cue at a tournament in N.C. from Joe Blackburn (built by him). I then drove the 700 miles home and immediately jumped into a tough 9-ball tournament without ever hitting a ball with that cue. I won that tournament, and I firmly believe it was because of the increased confidence I gained from owning a new cue. And I know for a fact that CTE had nothing to do with it.

Will we ever reach a point where we can put some measurable values on CTE?

I apologize in advance if this post is off track, Dave.

Roger

You asked what value CTE has?

Increased ability to pocket balls. Now I am assuming that CTE will help the user to pocket more balls because I know that the system I learned from Hal has helped me to pocket more balls consistently.

I understand the 'new cue' boost. This is different. This is like when you take a player who doesn't have a clue how to draw their ball and you show them the wonderful world of backspin. That player MIGHT be able to naturally aim better than you can ever dream of with any system but they would never beat you consistently if they don't know anything about cueball control.

Conversely you might have a player, like me, who can hit the ball with all sorts of spin and understands position play and touch but can't aim. For some reason I missed a lot of shots where I FELT that I was lined up perfectly on. Shots where I felt that I judged the aim right, had the right line and so on.

After meeting Hal and after learning his system (NOT CTE) my pocketing percentages increased dramatically including pocketing with spin applied to the cueball.

So for me the value was in fact the things I listed with increased ability being number one among them followed by increased confidence. That hasn't diminished in ten years.

So if CTE works and your ball making percentage increases even a little then you will make more money in tournaments, you will make more money gambling, you will feel better about your game and you will enjoy playing more because success feels good.

I have no clue how CTE works. What I mean by that is that I haven't put in the time to study it to the degree that Dave Segal and Stan Shuffet or even Eric Hu has. So I am completely unqualified to say that I use it because I don't really know if I do. However I do use a few other systems that help me to pocket balls which I formerly had a lot of trouble with using the million balls practice method. So that's all I can really say about the value of such methods.

I can tell you that in diving, springboard diving, we also have systems and things we do to orient ourselves in space. Because if you try to "feel" your way through a double twisting two and a half then you will likely land on your ear drum and burst it.

I don't know about other sports but had I not learned those things in diving then I would likely be dead now as I was rather fearless and reckless on the diving board, preferring "feel" over technique.

So the value is success. If I were an instructor then I would go and seek all the information from the source on the subject. Just as I do in my own business. I seek all the information that I can from as many sources as I can and I try them all out. What works I keep and what doesn't I don't. I don't discuss the merits of any particular method until I have tried it. (I have tried CTE as I understand it and if I am doing it right then I find it to be great but I am not qualified in any way to teach or demonstrate it because I don't know if I am really doing it right.)

I hope that this clarifies my position on the subject of value a little more.

Best,

John

 

[JB Cases]

John -- see post #115 in this thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=2366329#post2366329. I'm still betting Mike has tried CTE.

And I know you won't totally "back off." Nor would I want you to. Your insights are valuable on all sorts of topics.

Fair enough and I stand corrected. Mike certainly seems to have done his homework then.

so 2,4,6,8 who do we appreciate? All the people who make pool great!!!!

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

I used CTE in a few games of One Hole today, my opponent could be labeled a CTE VICTIM. I am sold CTE is the REAL DEAL.

 

[Geometry]

BUT... Is it possible that these statements could be referring to the literal CTE (Center To Edge) part of the process only? And that the ETC part gives you your starting angle?

I've been studying this alignment in depth and its very curious. If you draw a circle with the CB as the center of that circle and the OB as the edge of the circle. You would notice that if you align center of the cue ball to edge of the OB that the intersection would be on the arc. Now if you use the dual alignments that spidey references in his blog, it would shift the same degree of arc from center CB/center OB as center CB/edge OB which is also double the diameter of the OB circle itself.

It's obviously not a coincidence as the alignment contains too much intelligence to be a hoax which gives me faith that this must be an exact geometric system. I just know I'm missing something.