My apologies to Dr. Dave

[Colin Colenso]

How exactly does one adjust, consciously or subconsciously, to the factors in bold?

The great Irving Crane, according to Freddy the Beard's pool encyclopedia of hustlers, would argue defiantly about throw occurring. So it seems he adjusted intuitively.

There are some basic rules on Dr. Dave's page for recognizing the few shots that are the biggest culprits for misses due to throw, in which cases, you may adjust aim a little. e.g Soft stun, aim to overcut. Heavy OE, aim to undercut.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You may be kidding but what you say is true.

CTE can not objectively make someone to "the" line of the shot for this reason.

It is scientifically proven that many factors will throw an object ball off line even if you stay in the center of the cueball.

* how hard you shoot can affect the amount of throw
* how clean the balls are can affect the amount of throw
* what you clean the balls with can effect the amount of throw
* wether you use top, bottom, or stun can affect the amount of throw
* the friction of the cloth can affect the amount of throw

Even a small amount of throw can cause a big miss on long shots so any of the above factors will need to be factored in either consciously OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY because the contact point that leads to center pocket will change.

If the contact point changes then the line to the contact point must also change meaning there are no objective visuals along with a pivot that will take you to the line of a shot BASED ON THE POSITION OF THE BALLS ON THE TABLE.




I want to believe that Neil is not smart enough to know this because I know how important "a man's word" is to him and I would hate to think he is "giving his word" to a system that makes bogus claims. Unfortunately I feel as if he in fact does know the effects of throw and how throw makes it impossible to have an objective visual that will lead you to center pocket... no matter what the balls were cleaned with, how hard you shoot the shot, wether you used top or bottom... you get my point.

Good points & then there is humidity. It affects more than just the rolling speed of the cloth.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You may be kidding but what you say is true.

CTE can not objectively make someone to "the" line of the shot for this reason.

In their defense, it is claimed that the system takes you to a line-through-centers which aligns to a slight overcut, (due to pocket shape I presume).

Hence, a firm stun or medium speed follow or draw, which have similar throw, takes the ball to near to center pocket.

I believe most of them are aware that the odd adjustment for throw is required.

 

[BeiberLvr]

The great Irving Crane, according to Freddy the Beard's pool encyclopedia of hustlers, would argue defiantly about throw occurring. So it seems he adjusted intuitively.

There are some basic rules on Dr. Dave's page for recognizing the few shots that are the biggest culprits for misses due to throw, in which cases, you may adjust aim a little. e.g Soft stun, aim to overcut. Heavy OE, aim to undercut.

I get making adjustments for off center shots.

What I don't get is how you know to make (if necessary), or can assume some is making, adjustments for throw based on how clean or dirty the balls are.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I'll answer your question with a question.

How do you know someone is making adjustments for throw based on the cleanliness of the balls? I've known great players in my life, and never met anyone that said, "I'll need to adjust where I hit this shot because the balls haven't been polished in a week."

Jon,

If you used english to throw balls you'd know after just 2 or 3 shots.

Actually you'd know after one but you'd hold off on making a decision because you might have hit it wrong. But after the second or third shot, you'd know & start making the adjustments.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I get making adjustments for off center shots.

What I don't get is how you know to make (if necessary), or can assume some is making, adjustments for throw based on how clean or dirty the balls are.

If the balls are that bad that extra friction is very noticeable, which is rare in my experience, the best solution is hitting balls harder and with a touch of outside which can eliminate throw for all shots, if applied correctly.

Addendum: The difference between slippery vs sticky balls mainly come into play with soft stun, soft follow and soft OE shots are used. These are shots we ought to be avoiding as a general rule, unless they are quite easy (near to the pocket of nearly straight).

 

[(((Satori)))]

I get making adjustments for off center shots.

What I don't get is how you know to make (if necessary), or can assume some is making, adjustments for throw based on how clean or dirty the balls are.

You get a feel for how the conditions are playing.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You get a feel for how the conditions are playing.

I think the conditions mainly effect CB positioning, and swerve when using side english sometimes.

Damp conditions can mess with my BHE system for adjusting for swerve to a point where I do what most players do on damp swervy tables... avoid sidespin unless you're pretty close to the OB or play it firm if there's a bit more distance between CB and OB.

 

[Neil]

You may be kidding but what you say is true.

CTE can not objectively make someone to "the" line of the shot for this reason.

It is scientifically proven that many factors will throw an object ball off line even if you stay in the center of the cueball.

* how hard you shoot can affect the amount of throw
* how clean the balls are can affect the amount of throw
* what you clean the balls with can effect the amount of throw
* wether you use top, bottom, or stun can affect the amount of throw
* the friction of the cloth can affect the amount of throw

Even a small amount of throw can cause a big miss on long shots so any of the above factors will need to be factored in either consciously OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY because the contact point that leads to center pocket will change.

If the contact point changes then the line to the contact point must also change meaning there are no objective visuals along with a pivot that will take you to the line of a shot BASED ON THE POSITION OF THE BALLS ON THE TABLE.




I want to believe that Neil is not smart enough to know this because I know how important "a man's word" is to him and I would hate to think he is "giving his word" to a system that makes bogus claims. Unfortunately I feel as if he in fact does know the effects of throw and how throw makes it impossible to have an objective visual that will lead you to center pocket... no matter what the balls were cleaned with, how hard you shoot the shot, wether you used top or bottom... you get my point.

Really??? You have to go to that length to troll Stan and myself on here? Or are you just pointing out your ignorance again on that which you do not know about??

edit: Can't help but wonder why you didn't include your buddy CJ in that with his TOI??

 

[ENGLISH!]

The TOI introduced here by CJ is a dynamic method.

CJ has said many times that one needs to 'calibrate' it.

IMO if the claim of CTE being 100% totally objective would be dropped then this back & forth might end & more civil & accurate discussions could be had.

If someone says that CTE is NOT a 100% totally objective 'system' or method or asks for an explanation as to how it is, they get 'attacked' but with no rational explanation to show that it is a totally objective method.

It's like John Barton has said to me, while he may not agree with everything that Stan says, Stan has certainly shown the method works for him & that it certainly can & does work for others as well.

The same can be said for CJ with TOI & the others that are employing it.

They both work but one is not saying that it is a 100% totally objective method when it is rather obvious that neither one is.

CTE obviously works, but it works in concert with subconscious intuition & not in spite of it. At least that is how I see it.

If one wants to call subconscious intuition 'vision intelligence', then one can obviously do so.

Perhaps a more acceptable way would be to say that our subconscious intuition is rather dependent on our 'visual intelligence' & experiences.

Dr. Dave deals in scientific facts & even he recognises subconscious intuition, or at least I think that he does.

Some of what is said regarding CTE flies in the face of science & logic & should show any rational individual that it is not a 100% totally objective method. Until such a time that a logical & rational explanation can be & is given to support that claim, I will remain in the opinion that CTE is not a 100% totally objective method.

That said, CTE obviously works extremely well for Stan & those that are using it. The problem is that one does not know when one is employing subconscious intuition. Some have said that if they are they are not aware of doing so & that is how it should be.

However, if one merely uses logic there is no other way to get more than one angle outcome from the same line derived from the same visual perception with the same exact & specifically defined pivot. It's been said that a different physical line is derived from the same defined visual. How can that be without some other influence?

It's said because it must be said IF the pivot is the same as defined & there is no difference in the defined visual alignment, but it is not explained how or why it happens other than it is a result of our 'visual intelligence'. Well... could it be that our 'visual intelligence' or intuition is telling us that that is the wrong line & the ball will not be pocketed based on that alignment, so...one had better move a bit in one direction or the other until we perceive the line that will pocket the ball.

I, & I think others would rather have it said that CTE is a 100% visual 'system' or method that is based on several objective points rather than it be said that it is a totally objective 'system' or method.

My reasoning is that to say it is 100% objective could be misleading to some or many. I was intrigued when I heard of it being totally objective but I found it to have holes if employed totally objectively.

Some say that that is because I don't have a good enough understanding of the system or how it works but no one can seem to explain the how & why it works other to say it's because of our 'visual intelligence' & you just have to trust it & wait for that ah ahhh moment.

Well some like Colin have spent more than a couple hundred hours & never got that moment & others took nearly a year before they could employ it fully as outlined. Could that be because with experience over time with the system one gains the intuition to 'know' where it works & where it doesn't without that intuition based subconscious adjustment? Maybe it would be better & possibly expedite the learning if one were simply told that it is not totally objective & one has to allow their subconscious intuition to come into play to fill the holes between where the system does work objectively.

If CTE is a totally objective system then a robot with two camera visual receptors for 'eyes' should able to be programed to align the stick in the appropriate place & make the specifically defined pivot & pocket the ball. I don't see that happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMx1xW2E4Gg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AENJxqR0g48

 

[Neil]

The TOI introduced here by CJ is a dynamic method.

CJ has said many times that one needs to 'calibrate' it.

IMO if the claim of CTE being 100% totally objective would be dropped then this back & forth might end & more civil & accurate discussions could be had.

If someone says that CTE is NOT a 100% totally objective 'system' or method or asks for an explanation as to how it is, they get 'attacked' but with no rational explanation to show that it is a totally objective method.

It's like John Barton has said to me, while he may not agree with everything that Stan says, Stan has certainly shown the method works for him & that it certainly can & does work for others as well.

The same can be said for CJ with TOI & the others that are employing it.

They both work but one is not saying that it is a 100% totally objective method when it is rather obvious that neither one is.

CTE obviously works but it works in concert with subconscious intuition & not in spite of it. At least that is how I see it.

If one wants to call subconscious intuition 'vision intelligence', then one can obviously do so.

Perhaps a more acceptable way would be to say that our subconscious intuition is rather dependent on our 'visual intelligence' & experiences.

Dr. Dave deals in scientific facts & even he recognises subconscious intuition, or at least I think that he does.

Some of what is said regarding CTE flies in the face of science & logic & should show any rational individual that it is not a 100% totally objective method. Until such a time that a logical & rational explanation can & is be given to support that claim, I will remain in the opinion that is not a 100% totally objective method.

That said, CTE obviously works extremely well for Stan & those that are using it. The problem is that one does not know when one is employing subconscious intuition. Some have said that if they are they are not aware of doing so & that is how it should be.

You have no clue how to use the system, never have used it, but yet still feel you are qualified to talk about it at all. Get some facts, then talk about it. Until then, your opinion means squat.

 

[(((Satori)))]

The TOI introduced here by CJ is a dynamic method.

CJ has said many times that one needs to 'calibrate' it.

IMO if the claim of CTE being 100% totally objective would be dropped then this back & forth might end & more civil & accurate discussions could be had.

If someone says that CTE is NOT a 100% totally objective 'system' or method or asks for an explanation as to how it is, they get 'attacked' but with no rational explanation to show that it is a totally objective method.

It's like John Barton has said to me, while he may not agree with everything that Stan says, Stan has certainly shown the method works for him & that it certainly can & does work for others as well.

The same can be said for CJ with TOI & the others that are employing it.

They both work but one is not saying that it is a 100% totally objective method when it is rather obvious that neither one is.

CTE obviously works, but it works in concert with subconscious intuition & not in spite of it. At least that is how I see it.

If one wants to call subconscious intuition 'vision intelligence', then one can obviously do so.

Perhaps a more acceptable way would be to say that our subconscious intuition is rather dependent on our 'visual intelligence' & experiences.

Dr. Dave deals in scientific facts & even he recognises subconscious intuition, or at least I think that he does.

Some of what is said regarding CTE flies in the face of science & logic & should show any rational individual that it is not a 100% totally objective method. Until such a time that a logical & rational explanation can be & is given to support that claim, I will remain in the opinion that CTE is not a 100% totally objective method.

That said, CTE obviously works extremely well for Stan & those that are using it. The problem is that one does not know when one is employing subconscious intuition. Some have said that if they are they are not aware of doing so & that is how it should be.

However, if one merely uses logic there is no other way to get more than one angle outcome from the same line derived from the same visual perception with the same exactly & specifically defined pivot. It's been said that a different physical line is derived from the same defined visual. How can that be without some other influence?

It's said because it must be said IF the pivot is the same as defined & there is no difference in the defined visual alignment, but it is not explained how or why it happens other than it is a result of our visual intelligence. Well... could it be that our 'visual intelligence' or intuition is telling us that that is the wrong line & the ball will not be pocketed based on that alignment, so...one had better move a bit in one direction or the other until we perceive the line that will pocket the ball.

I, & I think others would rather have it said that CTE is a 100% visual 'system' or method that is based on several totally objective points rather than it be said that it is a totally objective 'system or method.

My reasoning is that to say it is 100% objective could be misleading to some or many. I was intrigued when I heard of it being totally objective but I found it to have holes if employed totally objectively.

Some say that that is because I don;t have a good enough understanding of the system or how it works but no one can seem to explain the how & why it works other to say it's because of our 'visual intelligence' & you just have trust it & wait for that ah ahhh moment.

Well some like Colin spent more than a couple hundred hours & never got that moment & others took nearly a year before they could employ it fully as outlined. Maybe it would work better if one were simply told that it is not totally objective & one has to allow their subconscious intuition to come into play to fill the holes between where the objectives do work.

That is a very good post Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

That is a very good post Rick

Thanks.

If CTE is a 100% totally objective system then a robot with two camera visual receptors placed as 'eyes' should able to be programed to place the cue on the appropriate line & then perform the specifically defined pivot & pocket the shot. I don't see that happening. Well....actually I can see that happening but not in every instance that the balls may lay on the table.

Robot links below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMx1xW2E4Gg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AENJxqR0g48

 

[Ron Swanson]

Why do all dr dave inspired threads eventually become about cte?

Cte needs it's own sub forum within the aiming sub forum, where the believers can play in peace.

 

[victorl]

Why do all dr dave inspired threads eventually become about cte?

It's just the natural progression of threads here on AZ.

Here are some more:

league threads --> APA sucks
cue identifying threads --> piece of junk
Mosconi Cup threads --> #$&% you!

 

[Neil]

Why do all dr dave inspired threads eventually become about cte?

Cte needs it's own sub forum within the aiming sub forum, where the believers can play in peace.

Simply because certain people like to troll the forums, adding nothing of value.

 

[Neil]

Thanks.

If CTE is a 100% totally objective system then a robot with two camera visual receptors placed as 'eyes' should able to be programed to place the cue on the appropriate line & then perform the specifically defined pivot & pocket the shot. I don't see that happening. Well....actually I can see that happening but not in every instance that the balls may lay on the table.

Robot links below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMx1xW2E4Gg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AENJxqR0g48

Thanks for pointing out that you don't know how the human eyes work, and you don't know how robots "see".

 

[Neil]

Why do all dr dave inspired threads eventually become about cte?

Cte needs it's own sub forum within the aiming sub forum, where the believers can play in peace.

No matter where you put it, you know full well that certain people are going to keep coming up with the same old tired rhetoric. They just have to troll everything. They can't add anything of value on their own, so they feel the only way to participate is to tear down what is there. They don't care how much they ruin everything in the process.

 

[SouthernDraw]

Polished Sausage!

My wife is Polish. I like to use TOI.
.

Oh, this reminded me about a funny hot dog truck we saw in DC, last year. My wife spotted it first. She's Bulgarian and asked me, "What is this Polished Sausage?" I looked at the back side of the truck and sure enough, someone with a sense of humor spray painted an ED to the end of Polish in Polish Sausage! My wife thought she may have missed something in the translation. After I explained that a prankster spray painted it, we both laughed so hard!

 

[Colin Colenso]

No matter where you put it, you know full well that certain people are going to keep coming up with the same old tired rhetoric. They just have to troll everything. They can't add anything of value on their own, so they feel the only way to participate is to tear down what is there. They don't care how much they ruin everything in the process.

You tore down those tearing down trolls good Neil!

FWIW: CTE never needed to be brought into this thread. That said, you're as trollish as they come Neil, by your own definition!