Why CTE is silly

[JB Cases]

Thanks Joey,

I just stepped over to the table to double check that CTE works with balls frozen to the rail and I nailed all the shots all the way up the rail.

CTE is the greatest aiming method ever. I jsut shake my head every time I use it and the ball splits the pocket. Even to this day I sometimes get that "this isn't right" feeling where my old way of aiming is kicking in and saying STOP you aren't on the right line.

But if I ignore that and trust the line CTE gives me then the ball rockets down the rail and goes in with a soul-satisfying sound.

Gotta love it.

 

[lfigueroa]

And when the first rate magician reveals the trick then the amateurs take it and some get it and some don't. But the ones who get it can practice it until it becomes second nature for them as well.

Good comparison.

How many people do you know who could draw their cue ball two table lengths without instruction?

To the person who can't do it it seems like magic. To the person who can it's routine.

Hal Houle spent decades refining his approach to aiming. He has discovered or invented many different ways to get to the same line that a perfect ghost ball implementation provides.

He is the master magician who has been kind enough to reveal his tricks. People like me are the amateurs who only paid attention long enough to be amazed with the little extra ability we gained and to be annoying to people like you with a constant chattering about the existence of a great new world of aiming beyond ghost ball.

People like Dave, Randy, Stan and others have taken it further to a level of understanding that makes them junior magicians.

As the saying goes, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I agree with this to include any sufficiently advanced technique.

Only in pool as opposed to sleight-of-hand it's not an illusion. The balls going in the holes more often and from tougher positions is the benefit.

My point was that the magician isn't teaching you anything -- he wants you to believe that the ace of spades is "magically" transporting itself from the middle of the pack to the top; or that he can divine the card you've "chosen at random;" or that he can pull a coin from the back of your ear.

The magician wants you to believe it's real ;-)

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Uh-oh. Confusion arises again.

1) I got the impression from Lou's post that Hal called HIM. Maybe I'm wrong.

2) What happened to the saintly and jolly Hal in this version of the story? I thought he was just a WONDERFUL human being who wanted to share and spread the fruits of his labor and the glory of CTE far and wide.

3) What happened to the 15 minute rule? Hal couldn't get him off the phone quickly by just telling him the actual system?

See, I thought I made quite a conciliatory post toward you and your understanding of CTE in my last post. Then you fire back with your WHOLLY IMAGINED version of the content and attitudes of Lou and Hal's phone conversation. You know what that is? That's EMOTIONAL DEFENSE of CTE--at the DROP of a hat; at the drop of an almost throw-away comment about Lou's post.

That "CTE guys" only ever come back with EMOTIONAL responses/reactions, and NEVER with explicit/rational ones is like a blaring red siren to me, wailing "CTE IS BUNK" over and over.

Just to clarify on this point: I was minding my own beeswax and Hal called me one afternoon.

This was back in the day on RSB when the Houlites were having another one of their periodic outbreaks, had pulled out their foil caps and decoder rings, were running around the RSB campfire nekked chanting, "CTE, CTE, CTE" and sacrificing virgins. I, of course, was on the side lines wondering what all the hoopla was about and and telling them I wished they wouldn't waste a perfectly good virgin.

Hal actually used to occasionally participate on RSB (in all caps and somehow got my phone number, called me and went through the whole CTE explanation. Whether people want to admit it or not, that's how Hal taught a lot of people -- on the phone.

"Imagine you're standing at a pool table..."

Lou Figueroa

 

[dr_dave]

You and Dr. Dave should hook up with me at Valley Forge. Let's figure out why it works.

I would like to hook up some day, but I won't be at Valley Forge. Regardless, I already know how and why CTE works. It works when you set up with the correct alignment in combination with using the effective pivot length required for each shot. For detailed illustrations and explanations, see:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE​

Other reasons why CTE, or any "aiming system" works, can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#benefits​

Forget these threads. They go nowhere.

I agree 100%.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JB Cases]

My point was that the magician isn't teaching you anything -- he wants you to believe that the ace of spades is "magically" transporting itself from the middle of the pack to the top; or that he can divine the card you've "chosen at random;" or that he can pull a coin from the back of your ear.

The magician wants you to believe it's real ;-)

Lou Figueroa

I got your point. But you inadvertently made mine with your example because this is an instance where the magician reveals the trick and shows you the steps.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dave:
I already know how and why CTE works. It works when you set up with the correct alignment in combination with using the effective pivot length required for each shot.

I think you mean CTE would work if it actually provided these things. There's no real evidence that it does, and lots of circumstantial evidence that it doesn't.

It certainly appears that CTE is useful for its users, but it also appears that this isn't the way.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

SpiderWebComm:
Forget these threads. They go nowhere.

They're repetitive, but also revealing. Each one that goes nowhere again shows more and more clearly that the place we're trying to get to (a "concrete" explanation of how CTE works) just doesn't exist.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Just to clarify on this point: I was minding my own beeswax and Hal called me one afternoon.

This was back in the day on RSB when the Houlites were having another one of their periodic outbreaks, had pulled out their foil caps and decoder rings, were running around the RSB campfire nekked chanting, "CTE, CTE, CTE" and sacrificing virgins. I, of course, was on the side lines wondering what all the hoopla was about and and telling them I wished they wouldn't waste a perfectly good virgin.

Hal actually used to occasionally participate on RSB (in all caps and somehow got my phone number, called me and went through the whole CTE explanation. Whether people want to admit it or not, that's how Hal taught a lot of people -- on the phone.

"Imagine you're standing at a pool table..."

Lou Figueroa

Well you can't say he didn't try with you. In my case he reached out to me and I wasn't even ever contrary to his systems prior to being asked to come and meet him.

Hal has been obsessed with aiming for quite a while. Who knows why but it's his thing. So in my case I had given someone some advice about aiming that I plagiarized from an instructional article in one of the pool mags.

Hal had printed it out and highlighted the text he disagreed with. When I got to Denver he showed that to me first and did five minutes on why it's impossible to fixate on a "contact point".

As I said I spent 30 minutes trying to figure out how to get away from this weird old guy. But by the end of our time together I found that he really does have some amazing knowledge about aiming that seems like nonsense to those of us brought up on Ghost Ball and Bob Byrne's books.

Only after Hal took the time to meet me and show me a bunch of methods I never even knew existed, primarily because I completely ignored the raging debates on RSB, did I start to dig deeper. And what I found is that other people also had figured out similar non-traditional ways to aim. Traditional to me means Ghost Ball aiming.

I talked to Rodney Morris. He doesn't use ghost ball. I talked to other pros and they don't use Ghost Ball. Do they use CTE? Not the ones I talked to but they use methods that resemble the same motion that CTE produces.

So on the minding our own business and Hal tracks us down - score one success for Hal where I am concerned and one failure where you are concerned. Given that I think I reach more people than you do I'd say that my advocacy of Hal's systems ranks well above your contrary view in terms of influence.

Thanks Hal.

 

[JB Cases]

They're repetitive, but also revealing. Each one that goes nowhere again shows more and more clearly that the place we're trying to get to (a "concrete" explanation of how CTE works) just doesn't exist.

pj
chgo

It exists.

Just because no one has published one that satisfies your criteria doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[dr_dave]

I would like to hook up some day, but I won't be at Valley Forge. Regardless, I already know how and why CTE works. It works when you set up with the correct alignment in combination with using the effective pivot length required for each shot. For detailed illustrations and explanations, see:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE​

Other reasons why CTE, or any "aiming system" works, can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#benefits​

I think you mean CTE would work if it actually provided these things. There's no real evidence that it does, and lots of circumstantial evidence that it doesn't.

CTE does (or "would") work if you use the right combination of "initial alignment" and "effective pivot length" to create the necessary cut angle for a given shot. CTE doesn't work if you don't do this. My CTE resource page addresses both scenarios (i.e., when it does and doesn't work).

I think if somebody is good enough at sighting and aiming to judge or "feel" both the required initial alignment and the effective pivot length required for a given shot, they don't need any "aiming system." Although, an "aiming system" does help some people create a consistent pre-shot routine.

CTE does work. When are you going to get this through your thick skull? :grin-square:

Regards,
Dave

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

Arguing the merits of one aiming system vs another is like arguing about methods of tying your shoelaces. If your shoelaces end up in a knot, you were successful.

If one wants to sing the praises of their aiming system, let them. I could care less about the proofs of how the system doesn't work. If you use the "hit a million balls" system, good for you. Ghost ball - attaboy!. CTE - awesome. Fractional method - great! It doesn't matter how you get the ball into the hole. So, if someone says they use the refracted light through purple lenses aiming system, and it works for them, who am I to judge?

 

[dr_dave]

If one wants to sing the praises of their aiming system, let them.

Thank you for the invitation.

DAM is the best aiming system ever devised, and all of the pros (especially the Filipino players) use it. If you use the system properly, you never miss a shot.
​

Regards,
Dave

 

[lfigueroa]

I got your point. But you inadvertently made mine with your example because this is an instance where the magician reveals the trick and shows you the steps.

I didn't know Penn & Teller did close up magic ;-)

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Only after Hal took the time to meet me and show me a bunch of methods I never even knew existed, primarily because I completely ignored the raging debates on RSB,

You

have got

to be

kidding me.


Lou Figueroa

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
I'd say that my advocacy of Hal's systems ranks well above your contrary view in terms of influence.

Because only those interested in CTE join your CTE support group? How can you have any idea how many readers are steered away from CTE by these threads?

But actually I probably agree with you. The kinds of people who are most easily influenced by these aiming system threads are the ones who aren't here for rational analysis, but to find something they need. Non-converts will have their reservations confirmed in more detail, but probably already pretty much know whether CTE is or isn't for them. Revival meetings naturally create more believers than atheists.

pj
chgo

 

[Maniac]

Not to throw gasoline on the fire, but...... I do have a personal experience with the aiming system in question on this thread.

Keep in mind that I am totally neutral on my position of CTE.

I took an instructional class taught by one of the very instructors that has been mentioned in a few of the posts on this thread. I will NOT mention a name. On the last day of class, the majority of the lesson was on aiming by using a system. It wasn't referred to as CTE, but Hal Houle's name was mentioned at some point during the lesson. Anyway, in the act of trying to show the students the six different places on the object ball (one being a full-ball hit and another two being a thin cut shot and an extremely thin cut shot, basically leaving three spots on the object ball to make the rest of all shots, once the angle of the shot is discerned. So, in the process of showing the class how the system works, this instructor was MISSING more balls than he made. Shots that I was thinking to myself "Hell, I could make that shot a high percentage of the time". He didn't stay on the table long as he (IMO) seemed to be frustrated at his inability to give a convincing demonstration of a system that we had payed big bucks to have taught to us. He turned it over to the class to work on the system. Of the eight or so students in the class, I never heard one positive comment on the system. I myself didn't like it. I figured I might calculate the angle wrong, therefore mistaking which "number" shot to take. So, it all boiled down to making some kind of JUDGEMENT. I quickly surmised that I would just stick to what my brain has learned over the 35+ years (at the time) of pocketing balls and just trust my instincts. Whatever aiming "system" my brain learned on its own over the years works great for pocketing balls. If I can keep the wobble in my stroke down to a minimum, I am a decent shotmaker. All in all, I think a smooth, straight, repeatable stroke is far and away more important a shotmaking tool than any aiming system out there.

These things being said, I still believe that any aiming system out there CAN and DOES help certain players. They aren't for everybody, but do have a place in the pool world. Obviously it wasn't for me, but you can't overlook the fact that there are people on this forum that swear that it has improved their game. It's hard to argue with that, regardless if they cannot tell you HOW it works.

Maniac

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dave:
CTE does (or "would") work if you use the right combination of "initial alignment" and "effective pivot length" to create the necessary cut angle for a given shot.

That "if" is my point. There's no evidence that CTE does provide the right combination of initial alignment and effective pivot length, and lots of circumstantial evidence that it doesn't (i.e., nobody can say how). I know you're fully aware of the facts, and I suppose this seems like a semantic objection, but I think it goes to the central meaning that readers will take from the statement.

pj
chgo

 

[Maniac]

I think if somebody is good enough at sighting and aiming to judge or "feel" both the required initial alignment and the effective pivot length required for a given shot, they don't need any "aiming system."

Regards,
Dave

This is the truest statement on this thread by far!!!

Maniac

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...the place we're trying to get to (a "concrete" explanation of how CTE works) just doesn't exist.

pj
chgo

John:
Just because no one has published one that satisfies your criteria doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It's pretty strong evidence that it doesn't.

And I have only one criterion: make sense. The geometry of a successful aiming solution is braindead simple (I can describe it in a few words), so any method that gets you there should also be simple, and must be at least sensible. But neither you nor any other CTE proponent have managed to meet that simple standard.

pj
chgo

 

[GetMeThere]

Quote:
Dave:
CTE does (or "would") work if you use the right combination of "initial alignment" and "effective pivot length" to create the necessary cut angle for a given shot.

Quote:
Patrick Johnson:
That "if" is my point. There's no evidence that CTE does provide the right combination of initial alignment and effective pivot length, and lots of circumstantial evidence that it doesn't (i.e., nobody can say how). I know you're fully aware of the facts, and I suppose this seems like a semantic objection, but I think it goes to the central meaning that readers will take from the statement.

Right. That's my point, too (and I'm sure Dr. Dave understands that, and makes his posts here on this topic with a foot-wide grin on his face). CTE advocates seen in their videos display a "cognitive burp," during which they use their standard "pool playing feel/guesstimation" to determine where to hit the ball, do the pivot dance, then hit the ball where they think they ought to. Otherwise, there is no "objective systematic process" of alignments that geometrically results in a precise aiming spot or body position.

btw, a clarification on my personal place in this thread: I no longer wish to directly confront things said by CTE devotees. If general points come up that don't involve specific CTE devotees, or specific comments from them, then I'll be posting if I feel I have something to add. I'm not "done" with aiming discussion or CTE discussion, I done with trying to interact in any manner with its devotees--such interaction has me "bugged."