Why CTE is silly

[iusedtoberich]

Pool101,

Just to clarify your video, you are NOT a CTE user, or you are? I thought you did a much better job then Spiderweb covering the table, yet even from what was left visible, you could still find the pocket without any problem. I'm a feel player, and think that I can duplicate your results and spiders, if I covered the tables in the exact same way. I think our brains are so used to what the table looks like, that we have no problem finding the pocket with just some of the rails visible.

I've played on a 9 foot table all my life. Just recently, I was on an 8 footer, and every time I went to spot the cue ball to break, it was way past the headstring. My brain was so used to moving my arm an exact amount, that I didn't even know I was well past the line until someone said something.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Pool101,

Just to clarify your video, you are NOT a CTE user, or you are? I thought you did a much better job then Spiderweb covering the table, yet even from what was left visible, you could still find the pocket without any problem. I'm a feel player, and think that I can duplicate your results and spiders, if I covered the tables in the exact same way. I think our brains are so used to what the table looks like, that we have no problem finding the pocket with just some of the rails visible.

I've played on a 9 foot table all my life. Just recently, I was on an 8 footer, and every time I went to spot the cue ball to break, it was way past the headstring. My brain was so used to moving my arm an exact amount, that I didn't even know I was well past the line until someone said something.

I thought pool101 did a good job. Technically, the OB never moved so he could shoot over the same spot on the cloth over and over again to pocket his balls. Not knocking his video because I'm HAPPY he posted one. I'm just saying moving the CB/OB to random points versus leaving a static OB are two separate deals. He could put a tiny mark on the cloth 1 1/8 off the contact point and shoot over that point for all shots. NOT saying he did that, I'm just stating a fault in the way he demonstrated his video.

I also shot 15 balls to his 1/2 rack. If he shot 15 shots with random cb/ob locations - then you can compare Just saying.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Did you see his second video? Where the foil was flipped over? He just randomly put the cue ball and object ball at different spots with his stick, even shooting to both corner pockets.

 

[pool101]

Pool101,

Just to clarify your video, you are NOT a CTE user, or you are? I thought you did a much better job then Spiderweb covering the table, yet even from what was left visible, you could still find the pocket without any problem. I'm a feel player, and think that I can duplicate your results and spiders, if I covered the tables in the exact same way. I think our brains are so used to what the table looks like, that we have no problem finding the pocket with just some of the rails visible.

I've played on a 9 foot table all my life. Just recently, I was on an 8 footer, and every time I went to spot the cue ball to break, it was way past the headstring. My brain was so used to moving my arm an exact amount, that I didn't even know I was well past the line until someone said something.

No I am not a CTE user, yet, and may never be. Not saying I wont but I have not been convinced yet that it is easier or better than what I currently use..
and yes you are correct which was my point that anyone who has played pool for a while can use the available info on the table to locate the pocket in their minds eye and pocket balls. I am pretty sure most players could duplicate it if they allowed themselves to believe they could.
Mark
I should add that as spidey pointed out it seems the top instructors are teaching it so I believe there is something to it.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Did you see his second video? Where the foil was flipped over? He just randomly put the cue ball and object ball at different spots with his stick, even shooting to both corner pockets.

No - just saw it now. That was a much better test, imo.

 

[mikepage]

Please tell me this is a joke. Patrick has claimed many times and proven many more times that he knows essentially nothing about CTE. Now, you want to put YOUR reputation on the line by saying that he knows as much about it as Stan does?? As much as the guys that invented CTE???

First, Neil, my life's too short to worry about my reputation. I do what I do as well as I can and I call things like I see 'em. People can think of me whatever they choose.

I really have no clue what Stan knows. We haven't met, and he really hasn't revealed much here.

I've discussed--at the table--aiming with Hal Houle, Bob Jewett, Tom Simpson, Randy Goettlicher, Dave Segal, Ron Sheperd, Scott Lee, Gene Albrecht, and many others.

I've also spent a lot of time at the table with Patrick as well as interacted with him online for more than a decade.

He understands aiming very well, as well as or better than do most top instructors, imo. Anyone with a new idea about aiming would do well to share it with Pat to get his critical judgment.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Ok boys, I'm going to go out in a few hrs, and try this. I'm going to read what is on Dr Dave's site, and just try it on a few simple shots. Do the CTE users have a shot they recommend a complete feel player try when using CTE for the first time?

Some background on myself:

I'm a high C/low B player. I'm a complete feel player. I don't see contact points, I don't use ball fractions, I never say to myself half ball hit, etc. I even play a ton of one hole, and I don't use a system for the spot shot. I just get down and shoot it, never being precise with cue ball placement, even though I know there does exist systems for this one and only shot in pool that can be exactly duplicated. I don't use ghost ball (meaning I do not imagine a "grey" ball to aim at). I can make almost any shot on the table that an A player can, given enough tries, with my own methods, to include any english, spin, position, etc. I didn't say I can do them consistently, just that I can.

I do use Perfect Aim with good success, but I do not believe that has anything to do with aiming. All I do is sweep my head position sideways, until the shot "looks" perfect. I switched to this head positioning system when Gene first started his dvd's. Prior to that, I never paid attention at all to head positioning. I never had to relearn any of my "feel" aims while switching to this eye positioning system.


I'll go to the table with an open mind, even though I am of the opinion the 2d diagrams prove it can't work. My open mind will be because I'll give the benefit of the doubt that something looks different in 3d space.

 

[iusedtoberich]

From Dr Daves site is this cut and pasted. I'm going to try this shot, since its the instruction set straight from the source and its clear enough for me to understand:

BASIC CTE PIVOTS (as taught by Hal Houle):

For thick cuts: Your cue is parallel to the CTEL with your tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB (the edge of the CB that’s farthest from the pocket). You then pivot your tip towards the pocket until it reaches CB center.

 

[duckie]

I want to see a person that has been only playing one month, and just has learned to use CTE do all these so called test.

I want to see someone with no experince playing pool, learn CTE and do these so called test.

Based on these results will truly answer the question.

Unless you are using a blind person , there is no such thing as a blind test in pool. Why, cause pool is visual thats why.

There are enough visual clues that a person that has been playing along time can use GB and get just as close as anyone.

And for sure closer than the test subjects stated above.

I wonder what the excuses will be now.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I want to see a person that has been only playing one month, and just has learned to use CTE do all these so called test.

I want to see someone with no experince playing pool, learn CTE and do these so called test.

Based on these results will truly answer the question.

Unless you are using a blind person , there is no such thing as a blind test in pool. Why, cause pool is visual thats why.

There are enough visual clues that a person that has been playing along time can use GB and get just as close as anyone.

And for sure closer than the test subjects stated above.

I wonder what the excuses will be now.

Here are a few--- beginners have little to no visual acuity to identify lines/tracks. Many advanced players have issues with that. Secondly, beginners can't stroke straight - so, it's a moot point altogether. But, not for the reasons you mention.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

You guys don't get simple concepts. Sure it would work. The disc that's farthest away with get proportionally smaller with distance. Objects at a distance shrink in size, perceptually speaking. That's how things change.

Maybe you aren't explaining is so that it is understandable.

Just like the statement above.

So what if the ball/disc that is further away looks smaller.
If you have 3 shots set up at exactly the same distance from one another, if you draw a line from the center of each cue ball, to the edge of the smaller object ball/disc, if you were to analyse the edge that you just aimed at, it would be exactly the same for each ball if you were to look at it from an overhead view, as in the pictures i posted.

The only time that it would actually make a difference, is if you had shots of DIFFERENT lengths, because the pivot would be different, because the pivot itself would be different degrees for each shot.
I am not talking about shots of different lengths.
I am talking about shots of the SAME length, from essentially the same spot.

If the shots are the same, the edge of the OB aimed at, AND the pivot in terms of degrees, would be exactly the same.
If they are the same, then the same result would entail.
Parallel shot paths.

Just like in Dr. Dave's photo...
This is what i would expect.

CueTable Help

If it has been explained before, please forgive me, but i am not going to go searching through all the CTE threads that are all over the place.
That is just not going to happen.

Someone needs to explain WHY the this picture is wrong, and give a decent explanation as to why all the balls go into the hole, and not on parallel lines like i have depicted.
If that cannot be explained, then i will continue to be a skeptic.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Here is another example of a table situation. A CTE advocate can use this to explain to the the non-users what, if anything, they do differently to pocket the two shots.

Edit: Rephrased post so its more coherent.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Here is another example of showing the non CTE users the "why".

Is this supposed to actually mean something?

 

[pool101]

I want to see a person that has been only playing one month, and just has learned to use CTE do all these so called test.

I want to see someone with no experince playing pool, learn CTE and do these so called test.

Based on these results will truly answer the question.

Unless you are using a blind person , there is no such thing as a blind test in pool. Why, cause pool is visual thats why.

There are enough visual clues that a person that has been playing along time can use GB and get just as close as anyone.

And for sure closer than the test subjects stated above.

I wonder what the excuses will be now.

I believe you could do a blind test, take a rectangle made of plywood ,cardboard something solid (what ever you do DO NOT USE reflective material):smile:JK.. make it 2.5 ft wide and 8 ft long. the player would be closed in on 2 sides and the front with only the slot at the bottom for the ball to go under, with no way to tell table size. in other words the blind comes off the table to 5 feet back on both sides. it would need to cover less than 3 ft of the table so as not to allow you to see the side pockets. Now place the object ball on the table and the cue ball behind it and shoot away.. here is the catch the shooter has no idea if they are on a 7,8,9,10 ft table or if they are centered on the table or against the rail on one side or the other. All they would know is that they were at a rail they could use to square off of, you would cover the diamonds so as not to give a reference. I dont care what method you use you could not find the pocket consistantly unless you heard the ball hit a pocket, then you (if you were systematic in the original ball placement)could repeat that shot based on having found the pocket once. A good player once they had 1 line identified could move the balls around and still get close to making shots reliably. But only to that 1 pocket.

 

[randyg]

I wonder why the upper echelon of pool instructors (in no order) such as Stan Shuffett, Ron Vitello, RandyG, Tom Simpson, and Scott Lee all teach CTE (or a derivative) if it is approximate and doesn't pocket balls without all sorts of adjustments. I think Tom went as far as calling it "The Grail" and he's one of the few BCA Master-level instructors out there.

So, why do the best instructors in the U.S. all teach something that is called a "religion" by many people on here? Are all of these instructors cult leaders? Or, have these instructors put in a little time to see if there are some "guts" to this info after all?

I can only speak for myself. SAME AIM is in our normal curriculum, every day. Why? Because it works, easy to understand and very fun to operate.

In Pool School we generally touch on three aiming systems for all students. I know that CTE requires a small working knowledge of Fractional Aiming and a great stroke. Each student sees a shot their own way. Actually there are probably about 49 million aiming systems in the World!

Tom calls CTE the "Holy Grail".

SAME AIM is a banking machine....SPF=randyg

 

[iusedtoberich]

Is this supposed to actually mean something?

Its the same idea as your picture. The difference being on yours, one could argue some of the shots are thin, or thick. On mine, since the angle difference is so slight in the two shots, they are 100% the same thick, thin, very thin shot, as the CTE vocabulary defines.

It leaves less for the CTE user to nit pick about, during thier explanation on "how" or "why" cte works.

I'm off to the hall now, to try CTE.

 

[dr_dave]

But in the example below, the OB appears to be the same size with all three shots, right? The only thing different with these three shots in the cut angle required. Am I right that the only thing you do differently when using CTE to pocket each of these shots is to consciously or subconsciously change the "effective pivot length?"

Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick cut" category of CTE. Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots. The only thing different is the amount of cut angle needed for each shot. From everything I have read, heard, and tried, to use CTE to pocket each of these shots, the "effective pivot length" needs to be different for each shot. For more information, see:

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

If we had a video demonstration of how to make each of these shots, with a top view (directly over each shot separately) clearly showing the initial alignment and the effect of the pivot, I'm sure we would have answers to these important questions. I don't care is half the table is covered or not, or if each shot is made the first time or not. I just want to see what is different in the alignment and/or pivot on each of these shots to better understand how CTE actually works.

As the distance decreases to a diamond's length and below, a thick alignment can turn into a thin alignment - and a thin alignment can turn into a very-thin alignment. The first shot is a thick shot, but if you cut the distance to a 1/2 diamond, the alignment is adjusted to a thin shot. One can also make an alignment adjustment from thick to thin and reverse the pivot direction.
...
Distance / friction affect your alignment. Your second shot, if moved 1 diamond further away goes from a thin to a thick shot. The difference from shot 1 to shot 3 as far as the offset from the CTEL is about .4" Between 3 alignments and two pivot directions, you'll hit the proper offset - every time. Therefore, each shot has 6 possibilities (not all of them work for the INTENDED pocket).
...

Spidey,

Thank you for your well-thought-out and informative answer. This sounds very different from basic CTE.

I guess it's not as simple as: "just pivot and the ball goes into the hole," like in the old days. :wink:

It seems like some judgment is required; and even then, the 6 possibilities still might not work for a given cut shot (without some sort of "adjustment"). I look forward to seeing more details and clarifications in Stan's video.

By "friction," I assume you mean throw. This changes with speed, cut angle, English, draw/follow/stun, ball conditions, etc. Does the CTE method suggest how and when to adjust for throw, or is it just done by feel?

I'd love to do a top-down video. If you have one or know someone who can do that, I'm in.

I hope you will be able to do this some day. I think it would be very revealing and answer the many questions that continually recur in threads like this.

Thanks again, and regards,
Dave

 

[iusedtoberich]

CTE on table experiment

Post 1 of 3.

Report follows of my CTE attempts at the table. Report split into 3 posts, due to max number of post attachments. Please don't post in between, I'll just be a few minutes.... If anyone wants a PDF of my whole report, pm me your email.

 

[iusedtoberich]

CTE on table experiment

Post 2 of 3.

 

[iusedtoberich]

CTE on table experiment

Post 3 of 3.