So you don't understand the issue with CTE either. Surprise, surprise.
Bye.
pj <- finally getting some use out of the ol' bit bin
chgo
Cte
- Thread starter jamesroberts
- Start date
Bye.
pj <- finally getting some use out of the ol' bit bin
chgo
judging by your response you are a jerk off that can get the 7, or is that not the issue?
Neil believes he answered that question - so do the rest of the CTE zombies. Your chances of actually communicating with any of them are pretty much nil.
pj
chgo
See when I started the thread I was interested in knowing if people were playing more consistent and if cte improved their pool game, thats all.
Simple questions sometimes require simple answers
LOL. That's certainly "the issue" in the minds of several CTE zombies. You too, huh?
pj
chgo
Considering this is a pool forum, Im assuming you play pool
It just means putting them on ignore. They shouldn't care - it's not as if we've had meaningful exchanges. I only mention it so they'll know and won't look foolish trying to talk to me.
pj
chgo
i asked you what difficulties you had with cte and you gave me a jerk off answer, considering the original theme of this thread was how has cte helped you improve or made you more consistent then yes i guess relatively speaking it is the issue
Ahhh, now I get it.
Koop - evidently not in your bit bin
It wasn't a good day for Pj, hes a lil bit unhappy now lol
From post #365: "Once in your new position, look at the other ob. You will see that your alignment is not on, and you have to slightly change your body position a little to get the proper alignment. "
I did read this before, and the highlighted sentence didn't make any sense to me then either
(). I thought, perhaps, in following your reference I'd find a post with something like: When you move back 4-1/2" and perform the same setup procedure, you will discover that you are, obviously, on the wrong line and will have to start over... or something like that.
With the hypothesized "move the table underneath you" scenario, I don't see why I "will see that [my] alignment is not on", and you didn't 'bother' (at least I didn't see it, I'll read it again) to explain why I would.
I did read this before, and the highlighted sentence didn't make any sense to me then either
(). I thought, perhaps, in following your reference I'd find a post with something like: When you move back 4-1/2" and perform the same setup procedure, you will discover that you are, obviously, on the wrong line and will have to start over... or something like that.With the hypothesized "move the table underneath you" scenario, I don't see why I "will see that [my] alignment is not on", and you didn't 'bother' (at least I didn't see it, I'll read it again) to explain why I would.
OK, let's assume you're not just piling on with the rest of the CTE zombies...
I have no difficulties with CTE - I don't use it. If I tried to use it I'd quickly reach a point where the system instructions stop (right about where it instructs you to "acquire the visuals") and I have to complete the aiming job by feel. Since I already aim by feel and use my own "visuals" to align myself with the shot, I have no need for another more artificial way to do that.
My only interest here is to contradict the false claim made about CTE by most (all?) of its AzB users: that CTE works entirely "mechanically" without any user "feel" needed. The false claim that CTE's few defined cut angles are enough to make all shots is part of the false claim that it works without feel.
If you want to ask about those specific details I'm happy to talk (assuming you're one of the few in these threads who can follow a conversation). I'm not interested in droning on about whether or not CTE "works". Leave that horse for the zombies to eat... er... beat.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I see what he's saying...
He's saying that if you leave yourself and the balls aligned exactly the same and move the table 4.5" then the shot will no longer be in line with the pocket even though you will still be within the margin for the fractional used in the aiming process within CTE. IOW, the pocket placement DOES, contrary to statements from the proponents of CTE, have something to do with the setup and you are either a) using feel to step into the shot and NOT using fractional methods. or b) you're missing the shot or somehow incorporating CP's into the mix.
I wanted to stay out of these CTE discussions, but I guess I'm going to put my two cents worth in....
I am on both sides of the fence on this and as hard to swallow as this may be, I tend to agree with PJ to a limited extent.
If CTE is as described, it can't possibly work for all shots without adjustment.
I'm also with James Roberts on this, if it works, then it works for who it works for regardless of how they get there in the end.
I know a couple of phenomenal players who use LD shafts and insist that they are aiming directly at the CP regardless of where they're hitting the CB. outside inside whatever, they just aim at the cp...
The truth is, that for the vast majority of shots you'll run into, it appears that this is exactly what they are doing and it does work....
However, if you have a cut 45 degrees or more and use outside, you can't possibly aim at the cp, in fact you can't aim at a point ANYWHERE on the ball at all.
There are issues with the way CTE is described for a lot of shots. If it's working for you, more power to you, and IMO it doesn't matter if you're subconsciously adjusting or not. Whatever makes you a better player....use it.
(bite my tongue) PJ has a valid point though... It can't possibly work as described. No fractional aiming system can be exact with somehow incorporating the CP's or the exact angle to the pockets.
Jaden
From post #365: "Once in your new position, look at the other ob. You will see that your alignment is not on, and you have to slightly change your body position a little to get the proper alignment. "
I did read this before, and the highlighted sentence didn't make any sense to me then either
With the hypothesized "move the table underneath you" scenario, I don't see why I "will see that [my] alignment is not on", and you didn't 'bother' (at least I didn't see it, I'll read it again) to explain why I would.
He's saying that if you leave yourself and the balls aligned exactly the same and move the table 4.5" then the shot will no longer be in line with the pocket even though you will still be within the margin for the fractional used in the aiming process within CTE. IOW, the pocket placement DOES, contrary to statements from the proponents of CTE, have something to do with the setup and you are either a) using feel to step into the shot and NOT using fractional methods. or b) you're missing the shot or somehow incorporating CP's into the mix.
I wanted to stay out of these CTE discussions, but I guess I'm going to put my two cents worth in....
I am on both sides of the fence on this and as hard to swallow as this may be, I tend to agree with PJ to a limited extent.
If CTE is as described, it can't possibly work for all shots without adjustment.
I'm also with James Roberts on this, if it works, then it works for who it works for regardless of how they get there in the end.
I know a couple of phenomenal players who use LD shafts and insist that they are aiming directly at the CP regardless of where they're hitting the CB. outside inside whatever, they just aim at the cp...
The truth is, that for the vast majority of shots you'll run into, it appears that this is exactly what they are doing and it does work....
However, if you have a cut 45 degrees or more and use outside, you can't possibly aim at the cp, in fact you can't aim at a point ANYWHERE on the ball at all.
There are issues with the way CTE is described for a lot of shots. If it's working for you, more power to you, and IMO it doesn't matter if you're subconsciously adjusting or not. Whatever makes you a better player....use it.
(bite my tongue) PJ has a valid point though... It can't possibly work as described. No fractional aiming system can be exact with somehow incorporating the CP's or the exact angle to the pockets.
Jaden
Last edited:
I agree (with one caveat: I'd say "using feel to step into the shot in addition to using fractional methods".)
It just got damned cold in Hell.
You're making an uncommon amount of sense.
Sure - as far as "working" goes, it's all good.
When they say they're aiming at the OB contact point, dont you think they mean they're aiming the CB contact point at it?
I agree with this wholeheartedly (even though I don't think CTE is a great system).
All good points.
Sorry you had to suffer all this agreeing with me. If it's any consolation, I agree with you too. (ouch!)
pj
chgo
It is known that some adjustments are needed with the system and he wants this to be called "FEEL" he keeps making a huge deal of this
He thinks its only a few cut angles involved in making shots, he doesn't understand anytime the cb or ob is moved there is a whole new body alignment that changes your body position which effects the shot angle and makes a new unique cut angle possible everytime. Your body is position is in an offset position and this is how you can make thousands of different cut shots. Pj does not get this.
Last edited:
No its cool, sorry for calling you a jerk off!
I dont really know enough about cte to sit here and argue points.
Im just trying to play better pool, I play at a pretty decent level by just feel and Im looking to be more consistent, so either with cte I am or Im not.
I did show a pretty decent player a little bit of cte, i think he is a apa 6 or 7, he runs out pretty well and I showed him the basics and he got it in 2 secs and was making hard shots from everywhere and he used it on his break and just kept saying how amazing it is.
So i guess i was trying to figure out if anyone had stories like that.