A CTE test!

[JB Cases]

Here is a CTE Test. Go to your local pool room and match up a tough game. Use CTE. If you play better than you ever have and win then CTE works. If you play worse then it doesn't and you shouldn't use it.

CTE is not a millimeter precise system for getting to the SHOT line. There are no instructions anywhere which will allow you to PLOT OUT the exact positioning of the bridge hand in order for CTE to work using the EXACT same parameters for every shot.

CTE is a system of motions which bring the shooter to the right shot line MORE OFTEN and for a greater range of shots.

It FEELS exact because of the fact that it produces a valid shot line more often than not. It reduces the amount of guessing to the point that it feels incredibly precise, based on results.

The PIVOT - the mythical pivot - is merely a NATURAL result of starting with the edge of the cueball as the initial alignment. It's not an exact thing. It is not something that has an arc that is exactly the same on every shot, it is not something that is exactly half a tip on every shot.

It's like this - if you use GB and the step into the shot along the gb center line method then there is not a pivot BECAUSE of where you MUST be standing to get the line that way. If you use CTE then you MUST pivot because of where your body is when you start with a line that is NOT the shot line. The pivot brings THE CUE to the shot line because the V-notch in your bridge becomes a point on the shot line when you use CTE.

Put your bridge hand down in the right place and your bridge length can be 2" or 20" - as long as the v-notch on your bridge is properly placed the cue goes to the shot line precisely.

It's all to do with bridge hand placement. (not my idea BTW)

It doesn't matter if you do a Gypsy Rose Lee before you shoot as long as you put your bridge hand down in the right spot. Some players use GB to figure out where to put their bridge hand down and others use CTE, overlap, edges of the ferrule, double the distance, align the numbers, straight up guessing, pure feel, whatever...... the difference between them is WHERE the player is standing in relation to the cueball when he starts his approach.

With GB the player can only be in one place and be successful consistently. With CTE the player can only be in one place and be successful consistently.

Where CTE is PRECISE is that once a player learns to use the edge of the ball then that initial alignment forced on him by the use of the edge allows him to follow the rest of the steps with confidence that the end result is getting down on the correct shot line. The results speak for themselves as the true test of any method is increased shot making. if you can make more balls, make tougher shots and are more consistent then the method is more precise for you. It is more exact. And it's more fun.

Enjoy it. Don't let all this nonsense get in your head. If you try CTE and it works for you then just have fun with it. Work with it until you can use it without thinking about it.

It's pretty EXACT when you can get down a "tough" shot and send it home in a do or die situation for $1000. It's pretty precise when you can step up and shoot a backwards cut shot that doesn't even look like it has any chance to go and which you have have never tried before.

I feel in my heart that CTE can be mathematically explained as to why it works. But guess what? It doesn't matter. Truly. Do you know why GB works mathematically? Of course you don't and if you did it would not change a thing about how you use it or teach it.

Pool is a beautiful game where we control spheres like gods playing with planets. We smash the universe into a random constellation and then make the planets disappear one by one and do it again over and over. People do extraordinary things all the time without knowing the math and science behind their accomplishments. Don't let the math and science people on this forum dissuade you from enjoying this wonderful activity.

All that this arguing accomplishes is to instill doubt and confusion. And that goes for the pro-CTE side as well. I will continue to explore CTE for myself and enjoy the journey. I believe in science and math and so that's why I know that if I can produce consistent results then someday science and math will explain how I am doing it. My pleasure comes from making planets disappear and delighting in my increased ability to do so.

 

[Ratta]

I'm just stating my opinion...Good or Bad...Take it or leave it. I'm no world beater or mathematician!!

It speaks for you, that you re standing behind your opinion and let it out!
But in my opinion this point is not to discuss (bad or good!). If you can t instruct a student how to place his bridge (point where you have to pivot) perfectly, it will be confusing him.
If i would tell a student-- shoot that ball overthere to point x and let the cb roll to point y and he would ask me: how would i be able to do that? and i would tell him:"just try and error....you ll find out someday...." -then it would have been the last time he would spend his time with me (if he s kind of intelligent).

That s all what i meant Pablo- don t get me wrong. The last thing i would want is to offend you or sounding aggressive.

have a nice day,

lg from overseas,

Ingo

 

[pablocruz]

It speaks for you, that you re standing behind your opinion and let it out!
But in my opinion this point is not to discuss (bad or good!). If you can t instruct a student how to place his bridge (point where you have to pivot) perfectly, it will be confusing him.
If i would tell a student-- shoot that ball overthere to point x and let the cb roll to point y and he would ask me: how would i be able to do that? and i would tell him:"just try and error....you ll find out someday...." -then it would have been the last time he would spend his time with me (if he s kind of intelligent).

That s all what i meant Pablo- don t get me wrong. The last thing i would want is to offend you or sounding aggressive.

have a nice day,

lg from overseas,

Ingo

No offense taken and none intended!! Thanks!!

 

[JB Cases]

@Mantis
Imo many here think the same way, that in a discussion about *if a system* works, that we expect that basics/fundamentals are given. I just wrote it down, because from that what i read sometimes in those threads i m not really sure about it...lol.

I never learnt a CTE based system. And i usualy don t jump into these discussions because i follow my own attitude:
And this is, that if i have no clue, or proper and seriously information about something, i just (try) to shut up here.
Furthermore i had some really nice and respectful discussions via email and skype with a very few guys about cte-based systems-i mean with ppl who are using it. Also have had video-conference, where a guy was so nice to shoot while discussing about it and try to show me as it works for him.
I respect this 100% - but as long as noone would teach/show/instruct it to me 1vs1 i would never give a statement about a cte-based system.
If someone would show me even JUST A FEW shots (no straight in, rofl), where he/she would send me a very detailed step-by-step description, how these ball would be made by using a cte-based system....i would definitley give it a try. And if it would work just on SOME positions, i would install them for sure into my arsenal and wouldn t hesitate to show/teach them to students.

This was one of the few things i wondered about- that noone wasn t able, or just didn t want to send me shot-examples (3-4 balls, for example thin-cuts, or just another one) how i have to make them by using the system. The most responses here were like "not able to show it just theoretically" or so. And this is the only point what is teasing me really.
I for myself can explain every single shot i teach- furthermore each system i m teaching could be perfectly described.
Perhaps i m too stupid to understand it from the stuff (very rare infos) i found- but without finding someone who s able to really show me i won t jump into a discussion about "it works/or it works not" because i have no theoretical fundamentals.
And you can believe me-i m a real knowledge-junkie and love to experiment with new things.

The system must have his good sides/points bc many guys here are swearing for it.
I cannot swear-bc i have no clue. In germany is not ONE instructor who teaches it- and in my opinion here are a few world-class instructors. I woudln t call myself a world-class instructor-and still not certified officially (takes f...ing long here, with many modules you have to run through-and was forced to go no further by healthy problems), but i can seriously say, that i understand what im talking about and can always describe it theoretically and even so show it in practice.

Still hoping for a detailed written description- step by step- where you (if all fundamentals already given) could easily follow this description to make a ball.


Both sides should also show a bit more respect for each other- it sometimes hurts me how ppl getting aggressive about a game we ALL love. Some guys should think about it-not worth to get aggressive during a discussion.


lg from overseas,

Ingo

Stan's video shows you everything you need to know. Step-by-step instructions.

Follow the directions and you will know what the CTE system is and how to use it.

Just absorb it slowly and don't expect to be able to watch it once and then go to the table and do it.

There is no shot that cannot be made using CTE as outlined in Stan's video. Any shot which can be made directly to a pocket can be made using CTE as taught by Stan in his video. No exceptions.

I wish that my connection allowed for better video interaction but it does not. I showed you what I do as best I could. What I do works excellent for me and it might work for you. Trying to show you through this way isn't very effective though. This is one reason that Hal Houle preferred to teach it in person one-to-one.

 

[pablocruz]

Ratta...Are you not able to get the DVD where your at? I recommend you get it if you can!!

 

[JB Cases]

Here are a few for you to try, but they are all on 9 ft table which does make a difference in being able to reach shots.

Basiclly, CTE has problems with shots where you can not get into perfect bridge, stance, or cue placement. I've read of anyone using CTE with a mechincal bridge either, not can it be used on one handed shots. How bout a behind the back shot that is used at times when the OB abd CB are both close to a rail and pocket on the long side of the table?

Get away from just playing 9 ball or 1 pocket and you will see how limiting and useless CTE is.

All of these shots can be lined up and made using CTE. You can use CTE to find the shot line for any shot and then step into the shot on that line if you choose to.

Once again I would like to remind you about your hero Bruce Lee's philosophy, learn everything and take what is useful and discard the rest.

So using that philosophy as a guide, I chose to learn CTE to see what I could get out it. I got a better way to aim. Now since I ALSO know the Ghost Ball method I can always go back to it when and if I need to for any reason. As in take what is useful from GB and use it when needed.

Your reasoning and crusade is that CTE has no value at all. Something that your hero Bruce Lee would not say. He would have learned it to determine the value and then if he determined that it had merit he would absorb it into his overall being and personal style.

 

[Ratta]

Stan's video shows you everything you need to know. Step-by-step instructions.

Follow the directions and you will know what the CTE system is and how to use it.

Just absorb it slowly and don't expect to be able to watch it once and then go to the table and do it.

There is no shot that cannot be made using CTE as outlined in Stan's video. Any shot which can be made directly to a pocket can be made using CTE as taught by Stan in his video. No exceptions.

I wish that my connection allowed for better video interaction but it does not. I showed you what I do as best I could. What I do works excellent for me and it might work for you. Trying to show you through this way isn't very effective though. This is one reason that Hal Houle preferred to teach it in person one-to-one.

Dear John,
i hope you know how much i appreciated our session! And in the posting (not sure in which it was), where i talked about *the few guys* who are putting their knowledge together and trying to explain cte *SERIOUSLY* you were for sure one of them! The descriptions Spidey is letting out and also yours making sense to me (perhaps a few more)- and some other guys are just *copying and paste* stuff from somewhere without giving a noticable point.

Perhaps i m able to order the dvd in the next time-- til now i was a bit afraid, because i heard ALWAYS, that to learn it without 1 vs 1 explanation it would make no sense.
Let s see when my head says-GO AND ORDER IT

have a great day John,

lg
Ingo

 

[JB Cases]

The core relationship changes between CB-OB on every short, so in fact you have a new CTEL every shot! That's the key!! Once you slide into the proper 180 degree facing, it sets your bridge for you!! Quite simple!!

This is about as correct as it gets to explain the exact and precise feeling that people who use CTE get when lining up.

 

[Ratta]

Ratta...Are you not able to get the DVD where your at? I recommend you get it if you can!!

Someday i ll get it for sure-- some points prevented myself to order it til now. But thx anyway for your advice,

lg
Ingo

 

[JB Cases]

When the word "exact" is used with this system it should be assumed that it is meant to address the mathematics of the system, not the actual carrying out of the system. Any time the human element is added, any exact system will have a factor of error. Of course your address, actual pivot to center, sighting of the lines will not be exact every time, and will in fact need practice to even become proficient for the system. My point again falls to the question of whether or not the system can get you in correct alignment on all shots with the sight lines, pivots, and bridge lengths stated on the DVD. Some have presented math that suggests there are a number of shots that will be out of the available range of the given sight lines. Others suggest that there is error in that math, but have not been able to figure out the actual math themselves. Thus, I would like someone to give an example of an unmakable shot with CTE, and a CTE expert show how they propose it can be made.

I like the system so far for a lot of shots, but need to understand if there are certain shots in which I should stay away from it. I also think it would be a much more valuable system if we were able to determine what shots need what sight lines, adjustment, and bridge length without having to shoot a million shots each with the system to figure it out.

As Stan says this is a visual method. It's not a measurement method. There are no shots you should stay away from. There are no shots that CTE can't "handle".

In fact one of the huge benefits I have found with CTE is that I can make shots which I have either never tried before or which have been incredibly inconsistent for me due to the "toughness" of them.

To restate, I come up against shots which I normally would not try and I decide to try them using CTE and they go. I know that these shots are shots which were previously above my skill level to make consistently. However using CTE I now make them consistently.

The best explanation that the math and science guys can come up with as to how it's possible to make the entire range of possible shots is variable bridge length due to subconscious adjustment.

I don't think so but let's go with it and say it's true. So you start with the CTE line, put your bridge and down and pivot to center and you are on the right shot line. Let's say that between sighting the CTE line and getting ready to pull the trigger your brain has magically picked the right bridge length for the shot at hand. All the other steps are consciously done.

So if that's true then CTE is still exact and precise as long as your skill level has increased as a result of using it. Don't sweat the "math".

No one who can really play does.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB:
...you start with the CTE line, put your bridge and down and pivot to center and you are on the right shot line.

LOL. Care to add the detail for the "exact" steps highlighted above?

pj
chgo

 

[jsp]

The core relationship changes between CB-OB on every short, so in fact you have a new CTEL every shot! That's the key!! Once you slide into the proper 180 degree facing, it sets your bridge for you!! Quite simple!!

I posted this in another thread, but keep the CB/OB exactly where they are and simply move the pocket (such that the contact point on the OB changes). You'll still have the exactly the same setup lines (the CB and OB haven't moved!), but you need to come up with a different aim line. How does the system differentiate from these two cases?

 

[champ2107]

I posted this in another thread, but keep the CB/OB exactly where they are and simply move the pocket (such that the contact point on the OB changes). You'll still have the exactly the same setup lines (the CB and OB haven't moved!), but you need to come up with a different aim line. How does the system differentiate from these two cases?

are you saying choose another pocket or physically move the pocket?

 

[jsp]

are you saying choose another pocket or physically move the pocket?

Move the target (which is usually the center of the pocket) slightly.

 

[champ2107]

I posted this in another thread, but keep the CB/OB exactly where they are and simply move the pocket (such that the contact point on the OB changes). You'll still have the exactly the same setup lines (the CB and OB haven't moved!), but you need to come up with a different aim line. How does the system differentiate from these two cases?

Im guessing your asking about cheating a pocket? you can adjust the aim line slightly at the stand up visual part of the system, i do not recommend this. The best way to do this is after you pivot, you will basically be adjusting your aim line ever so slightly which will change your contact point on the ob ever so slightly. Tweak the lines a bit, i guess you can say, Stan says there are some adjustments that need to be made when using the system sometimes, i guess this is one of them. I will say it feels a bit like ghost ball aiming when I do it also. Is this the answer your looking for or am i not understanding your question?

 

[MahnaMahna]

blah blah blah

How are things going on onepocket.org? When is your match with Lou?

 

[jsp]

Im guessing your asking about cheating a pocket? you can adjust the aim line slightly at the stand up visual part of the system, i do not recommend this. The best way to do this is after you pivot, you will basically be adjusting your aim line ever so slightly which will change your contact point on the ob ever so slightly. Tweak the lines a bit, i guess you can say, Stan says there are some adjustments that need to be made when using the system sometimes, i guess this is one of them. I will say it feels a bit like ghost ball aiming when I do it also. Is this the answer your looking for or am i not understanding your question?

Don't think of it as "cheating the pocket". Think of it as moving the entire pocket, such as the location of pocket's center moves slightly. It's really the same situation (you're moving the target slightly), but for some reason CTE advocates think of the two scenarios as completely different.

It is claimed that CTE is a "center pocket" system (which implies "exactness"). If the location of center pocket moves slightly, then the system should accommodate that change. But if the CB and OB locations stay exactly where they are, I don't see how CTE (or any other system that doesn't take into account the contact point of the OB) can adjust for that small change in center pocket location. Therefore, it can't be a "center pocket" system.

 

[duckie]

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.

There is no limiting factors about what shots can to be submitted in this post.

Now, you are putting constraints on what shots can be submitted for testing purposes, ie, shots that you don't have to reach for, or shots where choice of bridge placement is not a option.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[champ2107]

Don't think of it as "cheating the pocket". Think of it as moving the entire pocket, such as the location of pocket's center moves slightly. It's really the same situation (you're moving the target slightly), but for some reason CTE advocates think of the two scenarios as completely different.

It is claimed that CTE is a "center pocket" system (which implies "exactness"). If the location of center pocket moves slightly, then the system should accommodate that change. But if the CB and OB locations stay exactly where they are, I don't see how CTE (or any other system that doesn't take into account the contact point of the OB) can adjust for that small change in center pocket location. Therefore, it can't be a "center pocket" system.

This is how cte/pro1 works, If your perfect with the ctel/aim points/pivot and stroke, the ball will go in the exactly dead center. If there were an obstacle blocking the pocket you would have to adjust because center pocket is no longer available. The system is designed to work on a regular pool table and not one that has a pocket out of alignment.

 

[AtLarge]

@AtLarge
thx for the link- already read this before.
But what Dave is writing there is the point where i have a problem, too. It s not defined,where the *bridge-hand* is placed exactly (pivot point).

thx a lot anyway,

Ingo

Ratta, I understand your uncertainty on this point. Many people have wished that Stan had been clearer or more explicit on this point. Others feel he was completely explicit.

After Dr. Dave wrote his summary, to which I directed you, I posted my interpretation of just what you are talking about, because my interpretation was a bit different from Dr. Dave's. Here's what I wrote:

Your descriptions of this seem, to me, a bit vague as to how to find the proper line for placement of the bridge. You seem to say one should shift his sight line off the CTEL to the secondary line (edge to A/B/C) and then, "guided by this line," somehow drop into the proper offset position.

The way I interpret what Stan says is that, essentially, one needs to find the sighting position where he can simultaneously view both the CTEL and the secondary alignment line (to A/B/C). This sighting position will be between those two alignment lines, and this sighting position will define the relevant edges of the cue ball and, therefore, the relevant face (now think of it as a flat disk) of the cue ball. From this sighting position, move straight in toward that cue-ball face (perpendicular to the flat disk) with the 1/2-tip offset needed.
​

I don't remember anyone saying I'm wrong about this, so perhaps it is correct. Give it a try, and good luck!