Cte
- Thread starter jamesroberts
- Start date
James,
I played with 90/90 and CTE stuff 2 years ago, didn't quite get it and went back to my normal feel-based style of aiming. Quit for a year (traveling a lot for work etc.), started playing again a few months ago, and picked up the DVD about 6 weeks ago.
I can tell you for me, after some time studying the material and getting my questions answered and really working with it, my game has gone up a level for sure. My ball pocketing is better than it's ever been, and as I continue to integrate it into my game I'm sure my confidence and game will continue to improve. I still don't fully understand why it works, I just know for me it filled a gap that's always been in my game, even though I was a pretty successful player prior to using CTE.
It may not be for everyone, as you can tell by reading the dozens (hundreds?) of threads on here about CTE and related aiming topics, and some people don't even want to try it before they condemn it. That's really all I set out to do, was to give it a fair shot, and I was pleasantly surprised. I've tried to show the basics to 2 players now, one of them didn't get it at all and frankly didn't want to, the other person was very intrigued and will probably buy the DVD to try and learn it as well. I think my demo won him over...
It's really like any other aiming approach or "system" or tool in your billiard arsenal, if it works great, keep it and use it, if it's not for you maybe you'll still learn something. I know I bought a ton of books back in the day (pre-internet) and most were garbage, but I always learned or reinforced something after reading each one. If you do decide to pursue learning CTE / Pro 1, I'm certainly willing to help as are several people here on the forum.
Good luck!
Scott
I played with 90/90 and CTE stuff 2 years ago, didn't quite get it and went back to my normal feel-based style of aiming. Quit for a year (traveling a lot for work etc.), started playing again a few months ago, and picked up the DVD about 6 weeks ago.
I can tell you for me, after some time studying the material and getting my questions answered and really working with it, my game has gone up a level for sure. My ball pocketing is better than it's ever been, and as I continue to integrate it into my game I'm sure my confidence and game will continue to improve. I still don't fully understand why it works, I just know for me it filled a gap that's always been in my game, even though I was a pretty successful player prior to using CTE.
It may not be for everyone, as you can tell by reading the dozens (hundreds?) of threads on here about CTE and related aiming topics, and some people don't even want to try it before they condemn it. That's really all I set out to do, was to give it a fair shot, and I was pleasantly surprised. I've tried to show the basics to 2 players now, one of them didn't get it at all and frankly didn't want to, the other person was very intrigued and will probably buy the DVD to try and learn it as well. I think my demo won him over...
It's really like any other aiming approach or "system" or tool in your billiard arsenal, if it works great, keep it and use it, if it's not for you maybe you'll still learn something. I know I bought a ton of books back in the day (pre-internet) and most were garbage, but I always learned or reinforced something after reading each one. If you do decide to pursue learning CTE / Pro 1, I'm certainly willing to help as are several people here on the forum.
Good luck!
Scott
I don't care if you take a CTE lesson or not. But I will give you action. I like my end of it if we play. FWIW when I first met Hal I didn't think much of him either. All I wanted to do was get away from him and go get in action.
But that early in the day at Paradise Billiards in Denver there was no action to be had so I stayed and listened feeling trapped by courtesy to my friend Bob Johnson who had asked me to come down and meet him.
Hal showed me a few systems and one clicked and I started rifling balls in from everywhere. Until THAT moment I had thought all the aiming system stuff was nonsense.
And after that time is when I started snapping off some bigger events and making better scores when gambling. Not long after that I moved up to playing one hundred dollar one pocket and a few short years later I was playing $600 one pocket.
You're a player so you know when when a player and gambler says they are playing a ball or two better. If I were an APA 3 and I said that the system was good then my word would be suspect. But when a player tells me something is worthwhile then I tend to respect their opinion and at least not put them down for it.
Anyway, I will be happy to try you some if we happen to be in the same place. And if you run into Billy Palmer tell him he has action with me as well.
I hope we run into each other somewhere down the road.
I will be at the US Open One Pocket in Las Vegas if you are coming.
I am sure Billy would be happy to play also. He is working and raising a family but would play if given a chance.
The cue is pointing at the ghost ball when the steps are followed. Accomplished CTE users have offered hundreds of times to meet with the "science" people who are so adamantly skeptical to demonstrate the technique in person and teach all that they know about it.
Had ANY of the other side accepted any of these offers with the intention of dissecting the system to find out HOW it produces a valid shot line then we wouldn't need all these threads.
Exact descriptions of how to use CTE have been printed. By following those directions people have improved their shotmaking. The improvement in shotmaking is PROOF positive that the use of the CTE system is the reason that the improvement has happened.
I don't know why you say that pocketing balls is a crude metric? Pocketing balls is the only metric you have when it comes to defining successful shot making. A good player knows themselves well enough to know when they are pocketing balls cleanly or not. And they know themselves well enough to know when they are doing it more consistently or not.
If you take a person who is say very proficient and pocketing a certain shot using GB and another one who is equally proficient at the same shot using CTE and you give them both a harder shot and the CTE guys success rate is higher then what is your conclusion based on that small sample?
The fact that you and Pat Jerkson won't acknowledge is that success on the pool table doesn't lie. There is no placebo to hide behind, either the balls drop or they don't.
The parameters are that you have a defined set of steps for the user to follow, when those steps are followed a valid shot line is produced. It's not millimeter precise and is subject to errors in judgement but it does produce a valid shot line more often and works equally well for all shots.
So I don't know what other metric you want to see. Good players who have been in this game a long time can see the results immediately. James Roberts is a good player and he has clearly stated his own experience.
Now, for you and jerkson this may be some sort of intellectual exercise to prove that us dumb poolplayers are just self-delusional but I'd suggest that you expand your mind a little bit and think about the implications.
Let's say for a moment that you and Jerkson are right and there is NO mechanical benefit to CTE. As in CTE will never and can never be shown to work on paper. No possible way to show it mathematically as you were able to do with GB. ( I assume your math was right there).
So let's say that it's just a set of directions designed to get you in the ball park and then allow the subconscious to do the rest. This is your premise right?
If so then it is STILL subject to the basic criteria of shot making which is did the shot go or not?
For example let's compare two methods and two shooters:
Shooter #1 is given 10 shots of varying difficulty and told to shoot the balls in the hole with no instruction other than that.
Shooter #2 is given the same 10 and instructed on the Ghost Ball method.
How do you define success between these two shooters to determine which method is better?
Now introduce Shooter number 3 and give him CTE.
If his pocketing percentage is higher than 1 or 2 or both then what does that say?
Now give shooter #1 CTE and test him again against shooter #2. Now give shooter #2 CTE and test him again.
Throughout all these test the BASIC metric is whether the balls were pocketed or not.
Now you can decide to film each shot from the pocket perspective to determine how close to "center" pocket each ball got to for the purpose of defining which method produces the "cleanest" lines so to speak. But be honest, that doesn't really matter does it? Just like knowing the math behind ghost ball is a purely academic exercise which has zero practical value on the pool table.
None taken. Billy and I played once cheap at DCC and I did ok. Still lost but I enjoyed playing him and would donate a little more. I like to see where my game is and am not a lock artist. Billy is a gentleman and pleasure to play with.
However if you'd like to suggest a game that is fair for gambling and not donating purposes then we can bet higher. What type of spot would move me from no chance in hell to having a fair shot?
I will bet up to $500 to $1000 a game with a fair shot.
My PMs are full. Email me at jb@jbideas.com or hit me up on skype.
<--------------------skype is jbideas
Alright thanks!!
Sure. Basically it's a method of aiming where you start by looking at the edge of the object ball from the center of the cue ball. From there you come down into the shot from the side bringing your cue tip to center ball. You end up on the right line to make the shot using center ball. For english you would adjust off this line as needed.
For Dr. Dave's outline of Stan Shuffett's manual (pivot on the table) CTE, go down to "CTE Version 4" here: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE
First, how do you aim now? Can you see and aim at the ghost ball (GB)? If not, then CTE can help you with an alternate way to aim and make shots. There are many variations of CTE and one may work for you.
Me said:
I, amongst others, would be happy to, if one of you would come up with a set of steps that define, unambiguously, where the
cue will be pointing after following those steps, either in actuality, or as you see it from the shooter's perspective (in the eye of the beholder). Guides to positioning your head and body are just not enough. Generally speaking, the difference between potting a ball and missing rather badly, is only a few tenths of a degree in cue direction, and sometimes less than even a tenth of a degree. Overall body, head and eye location are insufficient to restrict the direction of the cue on that scale (i.e., a slight tweak of the grip hand or bridge is enough to span that range). That's why watching someone sink shots, however adept they are at it, can't be taken as confirmation of the system. It's just too crude a metric.
I, and I think many others, would welcome any further clarification.
According to what I've read thus far, Stan's DVD describes using the reference directions (edge-to-A,B,C and CTE) to get your eyes and body in some optimal position. That's all well and good, but then there's the matter of actually aligning the cue with something. According to the descriptions I've seen, that something is not defined. With your eyes and body all set up, there's still considerable leeway as to where you might actually point the cue. If you could get away with being 10 degrees off the ideal direction, or maybe even 5 degrees, having your eyes and body optimally aligned would probably make it awkward to have the cue misaligned by that much (i.e., enough to miss the shot). But, in actuality, it only takes a few tenths of a degree of misalignment to do so. Thus the question, how do you use those references (or something else) to point the cue? (I don't have the DVD, but this problem has been noted by those who do have it and are on the "contra" side of the debate.)
Jim
I, amongst others, would be happy to, if one of you would come up with a set of steps that define, unambiguously, where the
cue will be pointing after following those steps, either in actuality, or as you see it from the shooter's perspective (in the eye of the beholder). Guides to positioning your head and body are just not enough. Generally speaking, the difference between potting a ball and missing rather badly, is only a few tenths of a degree in cue direction, and sometimes less than even a tenth of a degree. Overall body, head and eye location are insufficient to restrict the direction of the cue on that scale (i.e., a slight tweak of the grip hand or bridge is enough to span that range). That's why watching someone sink shots, however adept they are at it, can't be taken as confirmation of the system. It's just too crude a metric.
I, and I think many others, would welcome any further clarification.
If you're referring to the small difference in cue direction that will make or break a shot, sure. But with ghostball, overlap or contact point aiming, ideally you align the cue to some definite point or line in space, which is the geometrically exact way to orient it. Obviously, you can only estimate it in practice, and the shot is only as good as your estimate and subsequent execution. But I wasn't referring to these real life problems in implementing the "theory."
According to what I've read thus far, Stan's DVD describes using the reference directions (edge-to-A,B,C and CTE) to get your eyes and body in some optimal position. That's all well and good, but then there's the matter of actually aligning the cue with something. According to the descriptions I've seen, that something is not defined. With your eyes and body all set up, there's still considerable leeway as to where you might actually point the cue. If you could get away with being 10 degrees off the ideal direction, or maybe even 5 degrees, having your eyes and body optimally aligned would probably make it awkward to have the cue misaligned by that much (i.e., enough to miss the shot). But, in actuality, it only takes a few tenths of a degree of misalignment to do so. Thus the question, how do you use those references (or something else) to point the cue? (I don't have the DVD, but this problem has been noted by those who do have it and are on the "contra" side of the debate.)
Jim
You have more than enough posts to realize that AZB is all about people pushing their respective businesses. It's not just CTE, Perfect Aim, (pick your favorite instructor) or any other specific case that gets cited by people as if it were in isolation.
There is a reason most other forums don't allow those kinds of posts (aside from their own personal 'sponsorships). AZB does it this way, and you kinda have to accept that fact or move on. Picking at specific nits, though, just gets you arbitrarily labeled, and does nothing for anyone.
Yet, it is taught to every high schooler in the country. Perhaps everyone is wasting their time.
Probably not, though. Think of it this way, even if you don't like the threads, you may have learned some math in the process, and the world could surely use more people who knew more about math and logic.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Your "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is probably as right on as right on ever was or ever will be!
Jim...not that I know Portuguese
Last edited: