A CTE test!

[mantis99]

I know, I know, another CTE thread. There is so much conjecture each way, that I propose a test. The "naysayers" suggest mathematically that the system will work for a certain array of shots, but not others, while the CTErs say that the system is exact for all shots, but that it just can't be proven mathematically (yet). I suggest this:

The naysayers should produce at least 4-5 shots based on mathematical angles that should not work, and describe them using the grid from the video. They should be shots that can't be lined up that easily from simply sighting the shot. A proficient CTEr (Stan or Spidey probably) should then shoot the shot giving us the alignment and pivot they are using (and other pertinent info if applicable such as bridge length etc.), and make the ball using CTE. Giving us all the alignment will allow us to each attempt the shot to our own satisfaction to see if it is makeable without adjustment. Covering the pocket with a ping pong table top or the like may be another control to help decrease the ability to make fine adjustments outside of the system. I know there probably is not a definitive way to prove the system works at the table, but this sounds like a pretty good start. Also, being able to go to the table and apply it yourself (as long as you have some CTE skill) will help each individual decide at what level they believe the results. I for one think the system will prevail, and would love to see the challenge met by both sides.

 

[manwon]

I know, I know, another CTE thread. There is so much conjecture each way, that I propose a test. The "naysayers" suggest mathematically that the system will work for a certain array of shots, but not others, while the CTErs say that the system is exact for all shots, but that it just can't be proven mathematically (yet). I suggest this:

The naysayers should produce at least 4-5 shots based on mathematical angles that should not work, and describe them using the grid from the video. They should be shots that can't be lined up that easily from simply sighting the shot. A proficient CTEr (Stan or Spidey probably) should then shoot the shot giving us the alignment and pivot they are using (and other pertinent info if applicable such as bridge length etc.), and make the ball using CTE. Giving us all the alignment will allow us to each attempt the shot to our own satisfaction to see if it is makeable without adjustment. Covering the pocket with a ping pong table top or the like may be another control to help decrease the ability to make fine adjustments outside of the system. I know there probably is not a definitive way to prove the system works at the table, but this sounds like a pretty good start. Also, being able to go to the table and apply it yourself (as long as you have some CTE skill) will help each individual decide at what level they believe the results. I for one think the system will prevail, and would love to see the challenge met by both sides.

Is it an aiming system yes!!!

Does it work? For some yes and for some no!!

Does it change the game of pool or billiards because it is a catch all system no!!!! None exist

What else is there to prove?

One thing is for certain opinions are like butt holes everyone has one and no one will change some else's opinion. To change an opinion the person who has it must do the research needed to keep it or change it, all these threads trying to prove or disprove this subject serve no purpose except to create drama, which apparently some people thrive upon!!!!

Oh and by the way, in my opinion what ever system you choose to use NOTHING will substitute for Practice practice practice, and if you practice long enough you will not need a system because you will create your own and that is secret to playing good pool. Some will agree with this and some will disagree, some will buy the latest Tip, Shaft, or Cue because they believe it will change their broken game, and some will never learn that there are no quick fixes or short cuts only more practice!!!!!!

JIMO

 

[Patrick Johnson]

There's no real controversy over this.

pj
chgo

 

[Roger Long]

I know, I know, another CTE thread. There is so much conjecture each way, that I propose a test. The "naysayers" suggest mathematically that the system will work for a certain array of shots, but not others, while the CTErs say that the system is exact for all shots, but that it just can't be proven mathematically (yet). I suggest this:

The naysayers should produce at least 4-5 shots based on mathematical angles that should not work, and describe them using the grid from the video. They should be shots that can't be lined up that easily from simply sighting the shot. A proficient CTEr (Stan or Spidey probably) should then shoot the shot giving us the alignment and pivot they are using (and other pertinent info if applicable such as bridge length etc.), and make the ball using CTE. Giving us all the alignment will allow us to each attempt the shot to our own satisfaction to see if it is makeable without adjustment. Covering the pocket with a ping pong table top or the like may be another control to help decrease the ability to make fine adjustments outside of the system. I know there probably is not a definitive way to prove the system works at the table, but this sounds like a pretty good start. Also, being able to go to the table and apply it yourself (as long as you have some CTE skill) will help each individual decide at what level they believe the results. I for one think the system will prevail, and would love to see the challenge met by both sides.

Poof doesn't prove anything to yeasayers and naysayers.

Neutralites unite!

Roger

 

[beerpressure]

 

[gordml]

There's no real controversy over this.

pj
chgo

When it comes to aiming systems to each his own. I have one that works for me and it pretty basic.If Im cutting left I line up the left side of the cue ball with the right side of the OB.

I dont think that learning a new system is going to help my game.
My limitations have to do with my stroke. And I believe thats true for most players who have been shooting for awhile (3+ years or so)
Stevie Moore swears by CTE, but he's a shooter and would crush most people with any aiming system. He shoots "real good" because of his stroke, and because he can handle pressure.
...and if you point to any of the locals here that I can beat , I wouldn't be scared to play them if they learned CTE. I just cant imagine these guys learning CTE then suddenly beating me

 

[RailDawg]

When it comes to aiming systems to each his own. I have one that works for me and it pretty basic.If Im cutting left I line up the left side of the cue ball with the right side of the OB.

I dont think that learning a new system is going to help my game.
My limitations have to do with my stroke. And I believe thats true for most players who have been shooting for awhile (3+ years or so)
Stevie Moore swears by CTE, but he's a shooter and would crush most people with any aiming system. He shoots "real good" because of his stroke, and because he can handle pressure.
...and if you point to any of the locals here that I can beat , I wouldn't be scared to play them if they learned CTE. I just cant imagine these guys learning CTE then suddenly beating me

I agree. The way it was explained by my instructor, is that eventually its all subconscious. It's like driving a car. At first turning left into an intersection seems weird and you dont know how far to turn the wheel to the left. But eventually it becomes natural. No one is thinking of how many degrees to the left the wheel has to turn to cause the car mechanisms to turn the front tires just so....
After a while you just look and turn, its all a matter of putting lots of miles on the road and it becomes automatic.
I think thats what many of the best players do they just look and shoot.

 

[12310bch]

In order for the system to work perfectly as it's adherents claim initial conditions have to be unchanging. The fact alone that a human being is
stroking the cue and without even considering the variety of skill levels
of players attempting to use the system denies perfection. Scott Frost may be opening a door to let hot air in or, more remotely, a butterfly may be flapping it's wings in Brazil. All is chaos. Although it may take a pool table a light year in length to demonstrate it every stroke is different and the results eventually become chaotic because of almost immeasureable differences in initial conditions.

Of course this discussion is just for fun and what ever works for someone is worthwhile.Also fun reading is the following:

Chaotic dynamics
In common usage, "chaos" means "a state of disorder".[21] However, in chaos theory, the term is defined more precisely. Although there is no universally accepted mathematical definition of chaos, a commonly used definition says that, for a dynamical system to be classified as chaotic, it must have the following properties:[22]

1. it must be sensitive to initial conditions;
2. it must be topologically mixing; and
3. its periodic orbits must be dense.

The requirement for sensitive dependence on initial conditions implies that there is a set of initial conditions of positive measure which do not converge to a cycle of any length.
[edit] Sensitivity to initial conditions

Sensitivity to initial conditions means that each point in such a system is arbitrarily closely approximated by other points with significantly different future trajectories. Thus, an arbitrarily small perturbation of the current trajectory may lead to significantly different future behaviour. However, it has been shown that the last two properties in the list above actually imply sensitivity to initial conditions[23][24] and if attention is restricted to intervals, the second property implies the other two[25] (an alternative, and in general weaker, definition of chaos uses only the first two properties in the above list[26]). It is interesting that the most practically significant condition, that of sensitivity to initial conditions, is actually redundant in the definition, being implied by two (or for intervals, one) purely topological conditions, which are therefore of greater interest to mathematicians.

Sensitivity to initial conditions is popularly known as the "butterfly effect", so called because of the title of a paper given by Edward Lorenz in 1972 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

A consequence of sensitivity to initial conditions is that if we start with only a finite amount of information about the system (as is usually the case in practice), then beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable. This is most familiar in the case of weather, which is generally predictable only about a week ahead.[27]

The Lyapunov exponent characterises the extent of the sensitivity to initial conditions. Quantitatively, two trajectories in phase space with initial separation \delta \mathbf{Z}_0 diverge

| \delta\mathbf{Z}(t) | \approx e^{\lambda t} | \delta \mathbf{Z}_0 |\

where λ is the Lyapunov exponent. The rate of separation can be different for different orientations of the initial separation vector. Thus, there is a whole spectrum of Lyapunov exponents — the number of them is equal to the number of dimensions of the phase space. It is common to just refer to the largest one, i.e. to the Maximal Lyapunov exponent (MLE), because it determines the overall predictability of the system. A positive MLE is usually taken as an indication that the system is chaotic.

There are also measure-theoretic mathematical conditions (discussed in ergodic theory) such as mixing or being a K-system which relate to sensitivity of initial conditions and chaos [4]


Can you believe that some people make a life out of this stuff?

 

[pt109]

There's no real controversy over this.

pj
chgo

This might be the wise crack of the day.
Are you related to BlackBalled?

 

[mantis99]

I have to say that I am surprised by the answers thus far. There are a number of people out there who find it to be controversial, and are waiting on the fence to find out if it works before investing the time needed to learn the system.

No matter how much one practices, or how perfect their stroke becomes, their are shots that are simply hard to see the aim point. A system that puts a person with a solid stroke on these spots as long as they do it right would be of value to many people for at least these shots.

Their is no controversy for the naysayers as they believe only one way, and vice-versa for the yaysayers. For everyone else, it would be nice to see at the table who is right. Neither side should have anything to lose.

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

What you guys don't realize is that CTE is MEANINGLESS!

Ha... I always wanted to do that.

For every shot I present to you, you could calculate the exact pivot point needed to make the shot and say: "See? It works! CHECKMATE!" But that's not the point. How do you get the correct pivot for every unique shot live at the table? CTE doesn't tell you anything. Get over it.

 

[champ2107]

What you guys don't realize is that CTE is MEANINGLESS!

Ha... I always wanted to do that.

For every shot I present to you, you could calculate the exact pivot point needed to make the shot and say: "See? It works! CHECKMATE!" But that's not the point. How do you get the correct pivot for every unique shot live at the table? CTE doesn't tell you anything. Get over it.

Does this post really make sense to you? I will give you the advice i just gave to the other guy in the other cte thread "you dont belong in this cte discussion, read but dont post silly stuff like that. You have zero understanding of cte,the dvd or this discussion."

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Does this post really make sense to you? I will give you the advice i just gave to the other guy in the other cte thread "you dont belong in this cte discussion, read but dont post silly stuff like that. You have zero understanding of cte,the dvd or this discussion."

Dude, if this was enforceable you'd never be allowed to post in any CTE threads.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

mantis99:
Their is no controversy for the naysayers as they believe only one way, and vice-versa for the yaysayers. For everyone else, it would be nice to see at the table who is right. Neither side should have anything to lose.

For the millionth time, there is no shooting test that will prove anything about this.

Where do they come from?

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

Dude, if this was enforceable you'd never be allowed to post in any CTE threads.

pj
chgo

I believe you were not even allowed to be on this site not to long ago, let alone be in a cte thread, dolt :thumbup: You post from the past with your "feel" garbage when there was only a ctel and a pivot. You have how many years invested in posting about cte and people who have just herd about it a month ago have become more knowledgeable than you have. I guess that angers you? You continually add nothing to these threads and should also read but not post, dolt :thumbup: someone is looking for some fun! bored PJ? trying watching the dvd again blockhead and maybe you can contribute something useful to these cte threads, dolt!

I told you before dude,u will get it back 2 an 3 times over oh yea please critic my punctuation for me also, i need tips because i think im going to write a book about DOLTS and BLOCKHEADS! and can you send me some pictures of your self playing pool and on the computer as-well?

The quickest way to get rep is to lay in to PJ, lmao and thanks guys

 

[JoeyInCali]

For the millionth time, there is no shooting test that will prove anything about this.

Where do they come from?

pj
chgo

Can't the stick be lined up then left on the table, place a cueball next to the ob where the stick is pointing ?
If the two balls line up to the pocket, it should go.

 

[manwon]

I have to say that I am surprised by the answers thus far. There are a number of people out there who find it to be controversial, and are waiting on the fence to find out if it works before investing the time needed to learn the system.

No matter how much one practices, or how perfect their stroke becomes, their are shots that are simply hard to see the aim point. A system that puts a person with a solid stroke on these spots as long as they do it right would be of value to many people for at least these shots.

Their is no controversy for the naysayers as they believe only one way, and vice-versa for the yaysayers. For everyone else, it would be nice to see at the table who is right. Neither side should have anything to lose.

No matter how much one practices, or how perfect their stroke becomes, their are shots that are simply hard to see the aim point. A system that puts a person with a solid stroke on these spots as long as they do it right would be of value to many people for at least these shots.


It you believe this to be true you need to practice those shots until you no longer have a problem making them consistently. Lets face the facts, some people will never play well for many reasons which I do not need to list here, we all see players that no matter how hard they try or how much they practice they just do not get it.

But, nothing substitutes for having strong fundamentals and an excellent stroke with out these aiming is of no consequence because no matter how clear and accurate your sight picture may be you will not be able to deliver the cue in a straight line to your perceived contact point on the object ball.

Most players are looking for quick fix to correct their problems and these systems will not help them unless they have a good stroke and good fundamentals. Practice is the key to being a good player and no system will change that, for those who are students of the game and have the ability to progress and learn time is the key factor. Each of us uses method's for aiming, some of us see things one way and others see things differently so there is no catch all system that will work for everyone, if you find something works for you use it and never stop.

Only time will tell how well anyone will play, and that is based solely upon each individuals habits, abilities, and how much time they spend learning the game.

JIMO

 

[champ2107]

Like most things this all comes down to human error :thumbup: even efren/earl/archer miss shots. The key is to miss shots as least as possible and at key moments. What more can you ask for? Its the best aiming system out there and puts you pretty much on the contact point every time, bottom line. It may not be for some people and some people may not need it, but overall its the best and time will prove this.

 

[Tramp Steamer]

I believe you were not even allowed to be on this site not to long ago, let alone be in a cte thread, dolt :thumbup: You post from the past with your "feel" garbage when there was only a ctel and a pivot. You have how many years invested in posting about cte and people who have just herd about it a month ago have become more knowledgeable than you have. I guess that angers you? You continually add nothing to these threads and should also read but not post, dolt :thumbup: someone is looking for some fun! bored PJ? trying watching the dvd again blockhead and maybe you can contribute something useful to these cte threads, dolt!

I told you before dude, 2 an 3 times over oh yea please critic my punctuation for me also, i need tips because i think im going to write a book about DOLTS and BLOCKHEADS! and can you send me some pictures of your self playing pool and on the computer as-well?

The quickest way to get rep is to lay in to PJ, lmao and thanks guys

Champ, you appear to me to be one of those pool players I mentioned before. The one's who are two-speeds, who want to be ten-speeds, but who'll never be any better than a five speed. The reason I believe this is (1) you do little more than hand out insults, and (2) your skills depend on an undependable system. A house built on sand, as it were.

 

[champ2107]

Champ, you appear to me to be one of those pool players I mentioned before. The one's who are two-speeds, who want to be ten-speeds, but who'll never be any better than a five speed. The reason I believe this is (1) you do little more than hand out insults, and (2) your skills depend on an undependable system. A house built on sand, as it were.

Good post, you make great points, move on son :thumbup: