John, have you forgotten about some of the claims made by Mr. Houle? Here's a refresher: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2397932&postcount=239
Aiming Voodoo Video
- Thread starter JB Cases
- Start date
John, have you forgotten about some of the claims made by Mr. Houle? Here's a refresher: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2397932&postcount=239
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. YOu are a worthless bag of .... wait... I think you just said something that was out of Ms. Manner's pocket book.
WOW! You are REALLY spot on with everything you said.
It's good to see that you are finally coming to the table. I'll have your kool-aid waiting.
If the claim is that these systems are "exact", and that if followed perfectly these systems would line you up to split the pocket on any cut shot on the table, then count me in as a naysayer. And it's very easy to demonstrate that this claim is false, and I'm sure it has been pointed out numerous times on this forum in the past.
The beef isn't towards the claim that using these systems could improve your overall game or pocketing ability, but rather towards the claim that these systems are "exact". Because they are NOT exact.
And here you stumbled upon one of the reasons why these systems aren't "exact". If they were exact, they would work on any shot, no matter the OB-CB distance.
Is Hal a part of these discussions?
The participants in these discussions who are being attacked by "skeptics" are the ones who have taken Hal's systems and studied them and refined them to the point where they are now able to teach them.
As you can see by your post the last time Hal posted was more than two years ago.
The validation for me is not anything Hal has said when trying to get people to call him so he can give them the instructions for free. The validation for me is that many top instructors are now teaching Hal's systems as part of their courses.
These people don't have to teach Hal's systems. In fact one would think that they would be better off not to given the amount of discord the mere discussion on these forums brings.
But they do and that by itself should be enough for most of the people who have been around pool for a while to take a fresh look at these systems.
Do I really care what some kooky old man says about some systems he invented/discovered/refined says about them? Not really. I never cared for the sales pitch prior to meeting Hal and if he hadn't sought me out then I surely never would of called him. But he did and his systems work.
So if you want to discredit Hal because of his exuberance go ahead. But you can't really discredit the actual systems until you have tried them yourself. At least that's my opinion on it.
Last edited:
CTE/Pro One
Good questions, John but I noticed that Mike took the opportunity to once again portray Patrick's behavior as acceptable.
Mike can't expose anything right now because he knows the video contains information that he doesn't have right now (nor apparently did Patrick, Dr. Dave, GetMeThere, LouFigueroa or any of the other naysayers) and that it probably contradicts most of what Patrick, he and the rest of the naysayers had to say about it in the first place.
Mike also failed to admit that Patrick's response to the moderator was totally out of line. Why is that Mike?
Why haven't you taken Patrick to task over his arrogance and disrecspetul nature?
The bottom line: We are all guests of AZBilliards and guests are REQUIRED to act in a polite manner even if we disagree with some of the other guests' ideas or even the host.
As Mike mentioned, he doesn't read a lot of what goes on in the forum so maybe he just didn't notice those personality traits of Patrick that irritated the hell out of practically everyone that was the recipient of one of his barbs.
All that being said, I will miss some of Patrick's posts and threads but I won't miss his failure to get along with many good fellow posters on AZ Billiards.
Good questions, John but I noticed that Mike took the opportunity to once again portray Patrick's behavior as acceptable.
Mike can't expose anything right now because he knows the video contains information that he doesn't have right now (nor apparently did Patrick, Dr. Dave, GetMeThere, LouFigueroa or any of the other naysayers) and that it probably contradicts most of what Patrick, he and the rest of the naysayers had to say about it in the first place.
Mike also failed to admit that Patrick's response to the moderator was totally out of line. Why is that Mike?
Why haven't you taken Patrick to task over his arrogance and disrecspetul nature?
The bottom line: We are all guests of AZBilliards and guests are REQUIRED to act in a polite manner even if we disagree with some of the other guests' ideas or even the host.
As Mike mentioned, he doesn't read a lot of what goes on in the forum so maybe he just didn't notice those personality traits of Patrick that irritated the hell out of practically everyone that was the recipient of one of his barbs.
All that being said, I will miss some of Patrick's posts and threads but I won't miss his failure to get along with many good fellow posters on AZ Billiards.
You're right, the ghost-ball system is geometrically exact. And there are systems out there that are exact because they can be reduced to the ghost-ball through an exercise in elementary geometry. The "double-the-distance" system is one such system.
But any system that doesn't call for an infinitesimal adjustment when the cut angle changes by an infinitesimal amount cannot be considered "exact". And correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I read none of these CTC/CTE aiming systems call for such high resolution adjustments when the cut angle changes by a very small amount. Is that correct?
BINGO!
That's exactly what Stan has done with Hal's CTE system. That is why it is called CTE/Pro One.
Most people know that if you irritate someone, that person is not going to tell you everything you need or want to know about a subject you are interested in. I'm sure that was the case with Hal and it would be with me as well. I think Hal just closed the window on a lot of people and for a few, he opened the window just a crack. Now Stan has completely opened the window.
I have said from day one that CTE/Pro One has adjustments for certain shots. That didn't seem to satisfy the "naysayers". I guess the "naysayers" just didn't read that information.
Let's be honest about this. CTE/Pro One is a controversial AIMING SYSTEM. After the video, some people will still have a problem with it being called an ACCURATE AIMING SYSTEM.
If people want to sit at their desks to define AND ARGUE the definition of "accurate" and "aiming system", they won't be arguing with me.
If they want to get on the table and so that I can demonstrate how they can become EFFECTIVELY MORE ACCURATE than they are currently, I can show them if they are truly interested in learning. Some people may not need another aiming system and may be satisfied with what they have.
I believe that a lot of valuable discussions will result from this video and everyone may learn a thing or two about playing better pool.
I even predict that some of the future discussions will even change my mind about some of the things I am now learning about CTE/Pro One.
But a few things I am certain of and that is:
CTE/Pro One users are NOT DELUSIONAL.
" NOT STUPID.
" NOT SNAKE OIL SALESMEN.
" NOT SILLY.
Some of the CTE/Pro One users HAVE IMPROVED THEIR POOL GAMES.
The difference is that the ghost ball system is exact on paper and is highly inexact in practice. I did a video showing that it's practically impossible to locate the ghostball center by estimation and imagination.
On the contrary it is much more precise to use two physical objects that actually exist for the aiming process.
Looking at this diagram should give you a clear idea of how this works,
http://www.jbcases.com/diagram-correction-big.jpg
Once you actually use the CTE system (I can't speak for the 90/90 system) you will see that it allows for any changes in cut angle. Move the cueball over six inches and the directions are the same and the aiming line produced is correct even though the procedure was the same.
As the title of the thread says, it's Aiming Voodoo. Actually the diagram shows you the reason in my opinion.
This was the exact example I was going to present. The same CTE line, or the same ETE line, but with varying CB-OB distances. It looks like one of Dr. Dave's figures.Looking at this diagram should give you a clear idea of how this works,
http://www.jbcases.com/diagram-correction-big.jpg
Once you actually use the CTE system (I can't speak for the 90/90 system) you will see that it allows for any changes in cut angle. Move the cueball over six inches and the directions are the same and the aiming line produced is correct even though the procedure was the same.
As the title of the thread says, it's Aiming Voodoo. Actually the diagram shows you the reason in my opinion.
In the second picture, it looks like you have the same bridge point but different backhand locations for each of the three OB locations. Why should your backhand change depending on the CB-OB distance? Does the system tell you to adjust your backhand differently for each OB?
(Forgive me if you explained this previously, but like I said I don't normally contribute in these threads.)
See comments in blue above. I remain eager to learn from Stan's upcoming video.
Last edited:
It's easier to see the point of the diagram when you look at the linked one which is the bigger version.
The bridge location is different for all three shots because the actual body placement is different for all three shots. All three shots however begin with the same initial sighting, which is center to edge.
As you can see the Center to Edge Line for each shot converges on the center of the cueball but then the important part happens, they all diverge from that point and each produces a DIFFERENT sighting line and subsequently a different bridge hand placement (not shown) which in turn produces a DIFFERENT aiming line for each shot.
After the pivot the cue lands on the ghost ball line for each shot.
What's important to see here though beyond the fact that three shots get three aiming lines despite using the same three steps to aim is that the points where the lines exit the cue ball towards the shooter are separated by very little distance. Thus the actual pivot distance from the closest shot to the farthest shot is very nearly the same but is actually unique to each shot.
So, from the shooter's perspective (at least from mine) the three shots can all be made with zero adjustment in technique.
And this is how it is for shots all over the table, for the shooter using CTE it's the same method no matter what the shot is.