A CTE test!

mantis99 said:
Have you read my post on how to get into the shot? As long as you identify the center of the CB as you need to (using the proper sight lines), the rest is fairly easy. At least as easy as getting into any other shot. Once you have that reference point, you just have to move your bridge hand into position as you would for any other shot, only this time it is to place your cue tip 1/2 tip off of that center point, then pivot back to center. That really is not that complicated or difficult. In fact, if someone can't do it, they will have trouble moving into any shot.

Once a person learns to sight the lines repeatedly, the rest is simple. I have posted a more objective way to do this that will work for each person already, allowing different people to compensate for differences in how their eyes see things.

When I first started trying this, I was terribly frustrated. After sighting the lines as described on the dvd, I would move into the shot as I thought the DVD said to, pivot to center and shoot, and I was missing consistently. Because I thought I was seeing things as described, I assumed it must be how I was coming into the shot that was wrong. I realized that was not true when I tried some straight in shots, and saw that I was way off after the pivot. I realized that I was not coming into the shot wrong, but that my original sighting was wrong. I then made adjustments to my sighting reference points until I was straight in on straight in shots after the pivot. All of a sudden I was sighting, placing the tip 1/2" off center, pivoting, firing and the balls were going in. Making the corresponding adjustment for thin cuts allowed me to correctly perform the sight lines for those shots also.

The system is not difficult once you see how to sight the lines correctly for the way you see, so that you get into the same line that Stan describes. Once you have that, the rest is simple and repeatable with practice. My frustration with the system is based on the difficulty in identifying the correct sight lines and pivot quickly for each shot. Also, it definately takes practice to sight things at varying distances.

If you do what I said to determine how YOU need to line things up to be correct after the pivot, then you will end up in the same line that Stan will using his sight lines. Thus it should be the reference points for the sight lines that change for each person (if needed for their visual perception), not the resultant line of aim. Fortunatley, it is very easy for each person to figure out those reference points for themselves.
Click to expand...


Patrick, I wrote the above post directed at you, but you have not responded to it. It addresses how anyone can find the needed points for their way of seeing things to get themselves into the same final line Stan is getting into.
 
mantis99 said:
One way to help look at this on paper, would be to work backwards. Take a shot that we know works to center pocket the ball with the system. Then look at the contact point needed to center pocket the ball. Then use the center of the ghost ball through the center of the CB. That would be the necessary post pivot point. Then of course move the equivalent of a 1/2 tip pivot, and you would have the pre pivot line. You could of course then look at the line as it sits relative to the sight lines used for that shot. This could possibly help to determine the relationship on paper.
Click to expand...

This doesn't reverse it "on paper", it reverse engineers it in real life, and quickly reveals the need for feel.
 
mantis99 said:
I think "at large" explained this point in a post above a little better by moving the balls instead of the pocket. This, however, is also on the DVD. Stan shows the needed sight lines and pivots for 3 different shots that would adjust things as you are saying. You would need to adjust your sight lines and possibly your pivot to make the adjustment.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't notice JolietJames and AtLarge's posts.

I don't see how moving the CB/OB together is any different than moving the pocket. I purposely focused on the moving pocket counterexample, mainly because the moving CB/OB counterexample has been brought up countless of times before.

Why are the two any different? In terms of the relationship between target, CB, and OB, they're EXACTLY THE SAME situation.
 
mantis99 said:
I don't really get why you are so caught up with this. If you took any shot, how would you get your bridge hand down? It is the same here. Once you sight the lines that are correct for the shot, you look at the ball, and the center of the ball as you look down is the reference point. Now simply move your bridge hand into place as if you would for any other shot at the necessary distance, and put the tip 1/2 tip off of the refernce point. Now pivot your tip to center, and you are lined up. The important thing is not the specific steps to get there. It does not have to be robotic, as long as you end up in the right spot. The important thing is to sight the lines correctly, then get the tip 1/2 tip off of the center reference point you found after sighting the line. Of course your bridge hand has to be the right distance away from the ball, but that is not difficult. Your question can be answered with a question itself. If someone placed a red dot CB in front of you with the red dot facing you (at the center), then told you that you needed to place your cue tip 1/2 tip to the right of the dot and pivot back to it, how would you do it? Thus finding the red dot as a reference point is all you need to do. The exact method for getting your bridge hand in place to put the cue 1/2 tip from the center is not so important as just getting it to that exact spot is.
Click to expand...

I also posted this for you regarding how to move into the shot, and you have not responded to it yet.
 
Why do we need 13+ pages on this thread, and dozens more on others arguing this when it doesn't really matter how anyone else pockets balls except yourself?
 
mantis99 said:
.... One other factor you have not addressed, is the fact that the OB will change in perceived size as compared to the CB when the distance between the CB and OB increase, thus affecting the sight lines again.
Click to expand...
For the first two diagrams, the perceived relative sizes of the CB and OB aren't relevant since the alignment is parallel to the edge-to-B direction (truly parallel as shown in the second of the two diagrams). As you indicated, it is relevant for the last two sets of diagrams where "parallel" is judged 'as you see it.' However, for the particular CB-OB separation shown, I'm not sure why you feel it isn't taken into account?

mantis99 said:
None the less, it is being made more complicated than it is to put into practice at the table. See my above post regarding how to get into the shot, and how to make sure you are sighting the lines so they will get you where you are suppossed to be.
Click to expand...
Mantis, can you give me a post #?

Based on a PM from John Pierce, I don't think my diagrams are in fact what Stan described on the DVD (which I don't have). From the surrounding discussions, however, it still seems that the alignments are not clearly defined. Any further clarification would appreciated.

mantis99 said:
One way to help look at this on paper, would be to work backwards. Take a shot that we know works to center pocket the ball with the system. Then look at the contact point needed to center pocket the ball. Then use the center of the ghost ball through the center of the CB. That would be the necessary post pivot point. Then of course move the equivalent of a 1/2 tip pivot, and you would have the pre pivot line. You could of course then look at the line as it sits relative to the sight lines used for that shot. This could possibly help to determine the relationship on paper.
Click to expand...
Very true! That's in fact what you do when working out the math. For the case shown by diagrams 1a/1b, I posted graphs a while back showing the proper pivot locations for a range of cut angles at different CB-OB separations. Again, perceived relative ball size is not relevant here, although CB-OB separation is a part of the geometry and was taken into account. I won't repost it here (hallelujah!) since it's probably not faithful to Stan's method.

Jim
 
mantis99 said:
Patrick, I wrote the above post directed at you, but you have not responded to it. It addresses how anyone can find the needed points for their way of seeing things to get themselves into the same final line Stan is getting into.
Click to expand...

He will just pull a line or word out of your post thats vulnerable to debate! he will ignore the rest and not acknowledge anything else.This is what he does.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That's because "CTE guys" are the only ones who believe this nonsense means anything about CTE. Landon Shuffet and Stevie Moore's exhibitions on the DVD also meant nothing about CTE (except that they promote it).


All that would do is lend credibility to your irrelevant exhibitionism. All the videos you've posted have not demonstrated a single truth about CTE. Not one.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

God you really do live in an alternate universe. Not a single truth? Not one?

Well why don't you show us then what the truth is?

Why don't you back up your claims? Since you purport to know what CTE is and isn't then simply make a video that shows it. Can't be that hard can it?

Show us all the adjusting you say must take place for people to use CTE. Dave Segal, myself, and others have done videos trying to do what you and others have asked. You all post shots and we do them using CTE, we do pocketing tests using it and have the highest scores, we do banking exhibitions, straight pool runs, make detailed commercial videos and not one "truth" about CTE has been revealed?

You are not really in line with your fellow contrarians Patty. For example they seem to think that the idea of CTE requiring adjustments is a truth that has been revealed through the videos.

Why don't we post a little video of Pat Johnson's method of aiming and let folks dissect that? All the fidgeting you do AFTER you get down on the ball should be good for some conversation. Don't worry about it I will respect your desire not to be featured on video. But I find it silly that you just so casually dismiss everyone's efforts.

So as sincerely as I can say it through this medium, *$% you.
 
mantis99 said:
His response wasn't meant to pound you, it was directed at PJ. He is saying that if PJ critiqued your way of making balls like he does CTE, then he would say that it was not exact and repeatable. He was being satarical.
Click to expand...

I will confess that I missed the sentence:

champ2107 said:
...This would be a PJ response...
Click to expand...
in his post.

Nevertheless, without speaking for PJ, I think it is a mischaracterization to say that he would have critiqued my aiming method in the manner you suggest since I make no claims that are not verifiable by an independent, and unbiased, observer...
 
mantis99:
Have you read my post on how to get into the shot? As long as you identify the center of the CB as you need to (using the proper sight lines), the rest is fairly easy.
Click to expand...
LOL. The only problem is there's no clear description anywhere of how to do that. And nobody promoting CTE seems to understand what "a clear description" even means.

I didn't see your other post. If you think it contains the clear description I'm asking for, repost it - I sincerly doubt it (I sincerely doubt a clear description is possible), so I'm not going looking for it.

pj
chgo
 
DrGonzo said:
Why do we need 13+ pages on this thread, and dozens more on others arguing this when it doesn't really matter how anyone else pockets balls except yourself?
Click to expand...

Because it does matter. If you are lousy at pocketing balls and the guy next to you is great then maybe you ought to check out what he is doing. If he turns to you and says I use CTE then he should be able to explain to you what that is and how to use it.

Despite all the evidence that CTE works and that it's more precise and exact than using Ghost Ball there are still people who continue to nitpick at it for whatever reasons they have.

So if their intention is to discredit a valuable method of aiming that can help players achieve a higher level then it is the intention of the supporters of that system to defend it. And so the debate goes on.
 
swest said:
I will confess that I missed the sentence:


in his post.

Nevertheless, without speaking for PJ, I think it is a mischaracterization to say that he would have critiqued my aiming method in the manner you suggest since I make no claims that are not verifiable by an independent, and unbiased, observer...
Click to expand...
Your description was clear and sensible - the double death knell for posts in CTE threads.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
LOL. The only problem is there's no clear description anywhere of how to do that. And nobody promoting CTE seems to understand what "a clear description" even means.

I didn't see your other post. If you think it contains the clear description I'm asking for, repost it - I sincerly doubt it (I sincerely doubt a clear description is possible), so I'm not going looking for it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Here you go - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJzD_ubW-zk

That's as clear as I can make it. I know you won't bother to try it but the posting of it isn't for you anyway.
 
JB:
You are not really in line with your fellow contrarians Patty. For example they seem to think that the idea of CTE requiring adjustments is a truth that has been revealed through the videos.
Click to expand...
That's a valid point (are you sure you're JB?)

Spidey's videos haven't revealed a single truth intentionally.

...as sincerely as I can say it through this medium, *$% you.
Click to expand...

LOL. Classy as ever, John.

pj
chgo
 
JB Cases said:
Because it does matter. If you are lousy at pocketing balls and the guy next to you is great then maybe you ought to check out what he is doing. If he turns to you and says I use CTE then he should be able to explain to you what that is and how to use it.
Click to expand...
So why can no CTE user do that?

Despite all the evidence that CTE works and that it's more precise and exact than using Ghost Ball
Click to expand...
LOL. Well, so much for the credibility of this post.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That's a valid point (are you sure you're JB?)

Spidey's videos haven't revealed a single truth intentionally.



LOL. Classy as ever, John.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, you don't like being told off? I am not the one denigrating the sincere efforts of a lot of people as you do constantly. It's really classy to tear down things you won't bother to try and don't know about.

What this comes down to is that you will never admit you are wrong about anything. Nothing. Ever.

You have that type of personality and so do I and we discussed it during our visit. The one major difference between us is that I am willing to try things first to see what they are and how they work BEFORE I start tearing into them publicly. You are not willing to do that from what I can see.

So you will always be at an impasse because you are not willing to be flexible and expand your view of the world.

No matter what one writes it would not be considered "clear" according to you. If someone gave you an exact formula for bridge placement for every possible shot you would find some reason to disqualify it.

If just once you would have taken an offer to get with someone who really knows CTE then you could have perhaps learned it as they know it and then you might understand where their ideas of exact and precise come from in the context of the system.

But you won't do that. There is no way for me to know this but I bet that you didn't even bother to try Stan's methods on the table. If you did then I missed it.

In any case, carry on, your personality and brain chemistry demands it.

I know the feeling.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I only watched the first couple of minutes, but I heard no mention of the "secondary line", only the CTE line. Is the secondary line irrelevant to how you use CTE?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Everything you need to know about how I use CTE is on the video. I didn't make a video to showcase how I use Stan's method. I made a video to explain to my friend Wei Chao how I use CTE in response to his questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top