Prove CTE does not work.

Do you even read what you write? It is impossible to have a discussion with someone that doesn't understand common sense. Go watch yourself playing with Lou and read your own statements.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
Well. I would start with Stan's version. He made a couple DVDs. He plays at a high level, his son is a national champion, his students have included professional players. That's the system you want to disprove on video I would think. It is the one you have clear instruction to dissect.

Prove that one does not work and don't worry about others.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
robsnotes4u said:
Do you even read what you write? It is impossible to have a discussion with someone that doesn't understand common sense. Go watch yourself playing with Lou and read your own statements.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

so you think video is worthless unless you can use it to prove your point?

If as you say you don't accept any other video proof of CTE working then how does my match footage with Lou prove anything relevant to this conversation?

tell me what your platform is and we can move ahead from there. I know you are much smarter than me so break it down in simple terms why I am wrong.
 
JB Cases said:
Well. I would start with Stan's version. He made a couple DVDs. He plays at a high level, his son is a national champion, his students have included professional players. That's the system you want to disprove on video I would think. It is the one you have clear instruction to dissect.

Prove that one does not work and don't worry about others.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If someone using PRO 1 looks at the contact point, does that prove he's using another system to make that ball b/c Pro 1 doesn't work on that shot ?
 
Joey a person is free to use whatever they want for any shot they face. They could use CTE and imagine a contact point. Combine CTE and ghost ball. Doesn't matter.

Making the ball is execution. Aiming is preparing to make the ball.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
JB Cases said:
Joey a person is free to use whatever they want for any shot they face. They could use CTE and imagine a contact point. Combine CTE and ghost ball. Doesn't matter.

Making the ball is execution. Aiming is preparing to make the ball.

I have not found a shot yet that is direct to a pocket or a bank which is possible for which Pro1 does not work for. Maybe you can do a video and show me some.

If there are some then the only option is to revert to whatever other methods you know to play that shot.
Click to expand...
 
Is anyone wiling to make a video proving CTE does not work?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
iusedtoberich said:
I *hypothesize* that's why Stan now calls his system "Real CTE". He did not before. I think that is to distinguish it from the other people who are perhaps using "Fake CTE"?
Click to expand...



Seriously? There's a fake going around...:)

A fake aiming system,that's funny. Is there any footage on this fake system...who knows ,it might be the real deal.;)
 
8pack said:
Seriously? There's a fake going around...:)

A fake aiming system,that's funny. Is there any footage on this fake system...who knows ,it might be the real deal.;)
Click to expand...

When they track it down, I hope there's video proof that it doesn't work. :thumbup:
 
JoeyInCali said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsqKORLrhC8
How do you compensate for cue ball squirt on that ?
Posted that months ago and you were going to shoot it too.
Click to expand...

I was preoccupied months ago and on the road. That shot is super easy with CTE. Line up using CTE and pivot using BHE and shoot it.

Compensating for squirt and deflection when using side spin is not part of CTE. CTE brings you to the line where you can make the shot using center ball. If you want or need to use side spin then you can adjust off that line by whatever method works for you. Some players use low deflection shafts and know exactly what those shafts will do every time, others don't and they have a wider range to compensate for.

I will try and shoot this for you today at work if I have time.
 
Without asking Stan I am going to say that "real" CTE is that which has come from Hal and codified by Stan as Center to Edge aiming.

Real CTE is that which Stan has made an extensive study of and understands intimately. When Stan says that real CTE connects to the table's 90 degree corners it is because that has been his extensive observation after investigating this method for many years.

I can't dispute it because the guy proved it to me in person. I looked for shots that he could not use CTE aiming to make and we only found a few places where CTE aiming did not take the ball to a pocket. In those few instances Stan made a slight speed/spin adjustment and the ball would then track to a pocket. That's the pool sense part of it.

Anyway after seeing this demonstration live and in person with no script I am convinced that Stan is right in his observation. Now I want to see someone prove him wrong. I want someone to show me where the trick is, where it can appear to work but not actually be working. Show me that CTE as Stan teaches it does not work.

On video. Clearly.
 
JB, this really is pointless. No one has proven anything works over the years... On video or otherwise. If there was proof, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

A pro player shooting shots and not missing proves nothing except he's a jam up player.

I do think a method could potentially be made to prove or disprove this or other aiming methods. It would involve a cue stroking fixture with a bridge that the stroking action could pivot about. Along with ways to repeatably set up the same shot, and perhaps a vision system and/or laser lines from multiple perspectives (cue axis, left eye, right eye, maybe more). A fixture such as this would be a tremendous effort to design, iterate, and build, in order to settle an argument.
 
I'll tell you what. I'll work with you to build the fixture. I'm a mechanical engineer in my day job, and I have really good machinist skills as I've worked as a machinist for a while. I'm not exaggerating I can design and build something quite nice. You put up 10k to play Lou, effectively putting CTE versus feel. So, I'll take the same payment of 10k to work with you in designing, iterating, prototyping, redesigning, and delivering a fixture that can help robotically do what CTE defines to do.
 
iusedtoberich said:
JB, this really is pointless. No one has proven anything works over the years... On video or otherwise. If there was proof, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

A pro player shooting shots and not missing proves nothing except he's a jam up player.

I do think a method could potentially be made to prove or disprove this or other aiming methods. It would involve a cue stroking fixture with a bridge that the stroking action could pivot about. Along with ways to repeatably set up the same shot, and perhaps a vision system and/or laser lines from multiple perspectives (cue axis, left eye, right eye, maybe more). A fixture such as this would be a tremendous effort to design, iterate, and build, in order to settle an argument.
Click to expand...

The MIT robotics lab still can't make a robot with perfect perception I think. A human can follow directions and there has been plenty of research showing that specific methods which are entirely imaginative can improve performance. Specifically a method called the memory palace is used by the top competitors in memory competitions. Now there is certainly no possible way to really KNOW if a person is using the memory palace method but again in a world where there is a presumption of innocence the conclusion is that they are when they say they are.

But think about what you just said, you want to build all that apparatus to prove or disprove a method that you say can't be proven or disproven without it.

Well if you're right then why all the claims that it doesn't work by people who won't even try it? I mean in the absence of sophisticated equipment all we have is performance and results and human testimonials to go on.

It seems like every time a person says "i don't get it", then that's "proof" that it doesn't work but every time someone says they do get it then they are delusional?

Why can't you try to prove your side of it on video? Are humans so fallible and frail and simple minded that they lack the cognition to adequately observe and explain those observations?

Make a video, show us that you understand the steps to aim using CTE and point out exactly why it doesn't work.

We have ways to set up the same shot, they are called hole reinforcers. No high tech needed there. We can use laser levels to mark lines and turn them while the player lines up and turn them on to verify that the cue has landed on the correct shot line.

It's also possible to use a virtual table overlay to check the paths on banks. So there are technological tools available to anyone who is serious about proving CTE doesn't work.

Start with a video camera and set the premise by showing that you understand what CTE is and how to use it.
 
iusedtoberich said:
I'll tell you what. I'll work with you to build the fixture. I'm a mechanical engineer in my day job, and I have really good machinist skills as I've worked as a machinist for a while. I'm not exaggerating I can design and build something quite nice. You put up 10k to play Lou, effectively putting CTE versus feel. So, I'll take the same payment of 10k to work with you in designing, iterating, prototyping, redesigning, and delivering a fixture that can help robotically do what CTE defines to do.
Click to expand...

I didn't put up 10k to prove CTE vs Feel. If I had done that then I would have put Stan in the box and there would have been no match because Lou can't win against someone who is truly proficient.

I put up 10k because I wanted to play and stand up to a bully. I went in unprepared mentally and physically. My fault. But I think it's great that a video of me losing is proof to some of you that it doesn't work but videos of people winning isn't proof.

How about we do this since you like to gamble. I will put up 10k against you playing a set of 10 ahead one pocket even and if I win then we will talk about whether you have the skills to build a machine to test aiming systems or not.
 
You find a C player who uses CTE and I'll gamble with him. Not 10k but something he and i would both be comfortable betting. I have plenty of videos up showing I'll never in my life beat any ghost. I think there is one CTE user on here who is about the same speed as me. I forget his name something like Beiber or similar

Regarding your other paragraphs, I KNOW you know what placebo means. Go read up on wiki about it. And double blind experiments. Etc. There is a whole field of science dedicated to setting up experiments. I'm sorry, but to suggest any CTE videos have proven anything is completely disregarding that entire field. That's my answer.
 
iusedtoberich said:
You find a C player who uses CTE and I'll gamble with him. Not 10k but something he and i would both be comfortable betting. I have plenty of videos up showing I'll never in my life beat any ghost. I think there is one CTE user on here who is about the same speed as me. I forget his name something like Beiber or similar

Regarding your other paragraphs, I KNOW you know what placebo means. Go read up on wiki about it. And double blind experiments. Etc. There is a whole field of science dedicated to setting up experiments. I'm sorry, but to suggest any CTE videos have proven anything is completely disregarding that entire field. That's my answer.
Click to expand...

You beat the four ball ghost. :-)

Anyway I know we won't gamble, was just putting that out there because you somehow think that me playing Lou was to settle the CTE debate. You know full well that if I had won then it wouldn't have changed your mind one bit so you can stop trying to use it for anything other than the entertainment value.

If you want to set up experiments using the double blind method on video go ahead. I know that I have probably done more research on cognition and perception within the scope of understanding this method of aiming than you have. I certainly have done more on-table work than you have.

If you are not prepared to disprove CTE then I can understand that. Although you do have a video camera and a pool table.

At least you could try.
 
It's impossible. I will respectfully decline:) Even with having a table and camera that's simply not enough. I do think a fixture would have potential, but it really would be an undertaking to do it. One I'm not willing to take at this point (that's where the 10k comes in) lol.

Happy shooting:)
 
Here you go. The memory palace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci

"Using this technique a person with ordinary memorisation capabilities, after establishing the route stop-points and committing the associated images to long-term memory, with less than an hour of practice, can remember the sequence of a shuffled deck of cards. The world record for this is held by Simon Reinhard at 21.19 seconds"

Obviously there is no possible way to KNOW that these folks are actually USING this technique other than their own statements that they are. But after INTRODUCTION TO and PRACTICE with this method they are able to perform feats of memory that are well above the ability of someone who has not been trained in this method.

So, here we have a completely mental system that has been proven to work to the satisfaction of scientists for improving memory. But when we have an objective system of alignment that relies on physical perception leading to body position and ultimately to cue address we dismiss that as placebo?

Instead of taking subjects at their word based on their demonstrations we look to tell those subjects that they have deluded themselves and there is some other reason for their improvement than the method they have been using.

I don't understand this. But anyway, I could say that the memory palace doesn't work simply by saying that I tried it and can't get the results. No one can look into my brain and know that I am not even trying. Well with FMRI it might be possible to actually see that now as they can image the brains of people who are able to perform those feats and compare those to people who can't perform them. The assumption would be that anyone TRYING to use the Memory Palace system would have some brain activity in the right spots.

But back to CTE - this is an objective approach with a clearly defined goal, to put the cue on to the shot line. That's totally a fail/pass result. If you say to me use whatever method you want and get the cue to the shot line and I do then it's a pass, if I don't it's a fail.

So it seems to me that you can figure out a simple way to prove CTE doesn't work because using CTE ought to lead to more failure than success in getting to the shot line IF in fact it does not work.

And you should be able to demonstrate this on video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top