You're the one who mouthed-off that you'd like to see it. Well, ya saw it....Now you say it's meaningless.
make up your mind
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
You're the one who mouthed-off that you'd like to see it. Well, ya saw it....Now you say it's meaningless.
make up your mind
That would be like dropping a bomb on Osama Bin Laden. Until you saw the feathers fly you couldn't really be sure if you're on target. :wink: With a table landmark (probably just the long rail) Dave was able to aim with a Cte setup while moving the CB and OB to different spots using 'thick, thinner and thinnest' aiming points.
The real positive result of this so called test was a simple one. Consistency. He was able to mechanically reproduce the result without a visual cue. He didn't have to guess. He used a thick setup and without adjustment took the shot. This is counter intuitive to many other aiming systems that require a contact point or parallel lines as the ball position CHANGES.
After many years of playing most players could walk up to a table with a curtain covering the opposite half of the table and get pretty close to pocketing a ball. Even if you moved the CB and OB around they would still be able to get a bead on the pocket. Dave is not using feel to do this. He is using fixed points to aim on the CB/OB which seems impossible. He is using an aiming point to shoot "blindly". This could be a good proposition bet. Too good to be true.
Best,
Mike
I always said it was meaningless. You're the one changing your mind. Is it meaningful as you claimed when you posted it, or is it meaningless as you claim now because nobody else did it?
You'll say one thing one minute and contradict yourself the next, because you don't know what makes sense and what doesn't - and that sums up all the "arguments" for CTE's "exactness".
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Okay, I think I may have a way to settle all the disputes. Let's get a team of 5 of the world's best CTE users and a team of 5 of the world's best non-CTE users to play a round robin match (each player on a team playing all five of the players on the other team, and vice-versa) of 9-ball in races that are medium in length, say races to 15 or so. At the end of it all, factor in wins, balls made, and shooting percentages (leaving kicks and safeties out of the scoring). The team with the better numbers is the overall winner. Find someone smarter than I am to figure out the proper scoring equation.
Would this be a reasonable test, IF it were feasible to put this together?
My bet is that it would be so close of a match, that a true determination of what aiming method is best would be left undecided.
In fact, I stand by my statement that all aiming methods aren't all that much different from one another.
Maniac
Would this be a reasonable test, IF it were feasible to put this together?
My bet is that it would be so close of a match, that a true determination of what aiming method is best would be left undecided.
In fact, I stand by my statement that all aiming methods aren't all that much different from one another.
Maniac
The way to settle it would be for someone to definitively explain my picture so that there is no doubt.
...would be irrelevant. How well it works isn't the question we always wrestle with, the question is how it works and why nobody can explain it.
The answer is that it's an approximate system that has to be "finished" by feel. For some reason CTE users are allergic to that obvious truth and so they tend to sound like they've forgotten how to speak English. I don't know why - maybe they think CTE is less respectable if it isn't "exact", or maybe they're afraid CTE won't work if they don't "believe in it".
pj
chgo
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.
Per your request. I think this should do.
Again I am not trying to disprove any system... just show that the video tests as done are not a valid test...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OD2T4mh9m8
Mark
Again I am not trying to disprove any system... just show that the video tests as done are not a valid test...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OD2T4mh9m8
Mark
I don't know what that means. Would you please elaborate?
Maybe its me but it looked as though you could see through your obstacle, not very clear but still see the outline of the table.
Are you shooting by feel ?
Mike when we look at a shot we determine if it is a thick shot or a thin shot. Thinner is available but I don't really use it, would rather play safe. There are numerous shots that fall in the thick range but we only use one alignment for each and pivot the same way. Same with thin shots (thin is in ). Therefore a wide range of shots are made with two alignments.
My belief is that some people are just too stubborn to believe that this could be true, but it is true. Four years ago I thought that way, but instead of argueing I tried it and guess what it works.
I cannot see through the windshield cover, it is Foil. You may see the reflection of the cloth that gives that illusion, if you go to the end of the video where I hold the camera down on the table you can tell, or go back to my previous post and you can see a still picture I took yesterday.
If you want to know how I aim buy the DVD and trainer its on my website now for 19.99 plus free shipping!:smile: or read a few posts back!
Mark
SORRY I could'nt help myself!!!!
Last edited:
Looks that way to me also
CTE works and WE know it.
THAT is all that matters, I use it on every
shot, break included .
At 2:05 you can see the nine ball on the left side of the screen..
from 2:07 to 2:15 you cannot see it at 2:16 you can start to see it, at 2:18 there it is plain as day.....
this is why I knew I should not have posted..
I never said it does not work....... and I am glad it works for you.
I want to see the video and see if it helps me..
I do not use everything I have seen because some things I do not get, or I find something I like better....
I think everyone is searching and as Tim the tool man says "You Can Never have too many Tools!" Grunt!! Grunt!!! I don't know how to make a pig noise on here.*pig noise*
Mark
Last edited:
I will try and help cookieman out since I think I know what he is trying to refer to...but is doing everything but explaining it.
It is the best explanation I have heard was from Hal...and IMO is the crux of how the CTE system works...It is actually the same basis as the 3-line method.
It is what I refer to as "The rifleman and the water tower"...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....
The basis is that since the rifleman has moved...even though he shoots the edge...it is a (different) edge.....(and a different angle of deflection from the bullet)
The is the best explanation of how the method works that I have heard that helps people understand that even though you are hitting the same edge (in appearance)...the angle is different.
I will leave it to people smarter than me to explain any potential science behind this....:smile:
All these people on opposing sides of all these aiming threads have evolved into something that reminds me of a song from a group I like "The Offspring" ......"You gotta keep em separated!!!!
Just replace the "kids" and "police" they are talking about in the song with...."Internet Aiming Warriars"...and "Mr Wilson"
Enjoy!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2gTFBhQ7Ko&feature=player_embedded
Couldn't agree more with your post.
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.
Jim
Last edited:
So if it a reflective image I am seeing are you using that to know where the pocket is, sorta like the mirror image for banking?
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.
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.
Last edited:
Mark:
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).
Good job!
-Sean
- Status