Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

  • I always go by feel

    Votes: 153 53.5%

  • Usually by feel, with aiming systems for hard shots

    Votes: 68 23.8%

  • Usually with aiming systems, by feel for easy shots

    Votes: 24 8.4%

  • I always use aiming systems

    Votes: 26 9.1%

  • I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink

    Votes: 15 5.2%
  • Total voters
    286
JB Cases said:
Ok well lifetime since adopting CTE I have won MORE THAN $10,000. Is that good for you?

I just posted the $1400 because it's the freshest series of wins AND it was relevant at that moment in the discussion.

P.S. I didn't lose to Lou BECAUSE of CTE. In fact it was BECAUSE of CTE that I was able to win at all given my mental and physical state in that match. I was a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE example of a pool player in general and not a good representative of CTE at all. Which goes to show you that JUST USING CTE IS NOT A CURE FOR OTHER BAD HABITS.
Click to expand...

According to Lou and several others who were present at your match, the few matches you did win was because you had a coach.
 
MahnaMahna said:
According to Lou and several others who were present at your match, the few matches you did win was because you had a coach.
Click to expand...

They would be wrong. Been over that. If the guy who was sitting in my corner, Dennis Strickland, is allowed to coach me I will bet on Lou next time. I can't understand him when we are having a normal conversation much less with him speaking with me five feet away.

The guy is a jam up one pocket player who would CRUSH Lou. But it was of zero help to me because I couldn't play like him even if he did coach me.

The best part of it all was that there was a shot that CONVINCED Lou I had a coach. Lou mentioned it to me at the end of the first night and called it a grade A top level one pocket shot. The people on One Pocket.org though ALL criticized it as a HORRIBLE shot. And in fact Lou easily got out of it which means it wasn't that great a shot. It was a shot that Dennis Strickland would have NEVER played.

So, Lou can believe what he wants. He is more than welcome to come to OKC and we can get a private table and play with no one else there for $20,000-$50,000 when I have the extra money to bet. My condition will be a ten ahead set. I should have insisted on an ahead set and that's my number one regret among others for the match that was played.
 
Very glad to see you're still around Mahna person. Would be horrible if a writer of your caliber had left AZB since we have lost so many.
 
JB Cases said:
Ok well lifetime since adopting CTE I have won MORE THAN $10,000. Is that good for you?

I just posted the $1400 because it's the freshest series of wins AND it was relevant at that moment in the discussion.

P.S. I didn't lose to Lou BECAUSE of CTE. In fact it was BECAUSE of CTE that I was able to win at all given my mental and physical state in that match. I was a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE example of a pool player in general and not a good representative of CTE at all. Which goes to show you that JUST USING CTE IS NOT A CURE FOR OTHER BAD HABITS.

P.P.S. If you do want to make a CTE money list then you would need to know the following information: Who played and for how much? Which player uses CTE as an aiming method and what does the other player use? If both players do NOT use CTE then the results don't go on the money list. If one does and the other doesn't then the results are recorded.

I am pretty sure that in the CTE player vs. non-cte player matches the CTE player will come out on top more often UNLESS the other player has a good aiming method as well and all else is equal. Obviously ME, cte user, vs. random pro non-aiming-system user will result in me losing more often due to the many other factors we have discussed many times.
Click to expand...

You match with Lou proved nothing about CTE's effiency or lack thereof. I believe that match was won and lost because of fundamentals, not aiming, not coaching nor psychology (though that may have played a part). That was my impression from watching the stream that day. Wonky fundamentals usually fail at the most inopportune moments.

When you get into winning statistics etc you need to be very, very careful when drawing conclusions, otherwise you risk falling prey to all kinds of third variable errors and logical absurdities. Many people have no idea how they aim, or at least cannot formulate it clearly. Almost everyone has been taught ghost ball or back of ball, if they are not entirely self taught. That does not mean they use these methods however. That observation nonewithstanding, if you were to compare winning records I think ghost ball would do fine....

Let's for a moment say that CTE did outperform other methods. Could it be that the people who activeley seek out aiming systems are more dedicated and practice more, and that these factors are responsible for their success? These kinds of problems is why you need large data sets, experiments, control groups etc...

Drawing statistical conclusions from a single case, such as yourself, is of very, very limited value, and you are smart enough to know that, I think.
 
JB Cases said:
Ok well lifetime since adopting CTE I have won MORE THAN $10,000. Is that good for you?

I just posted the $1400 because it's the freshest series of wins AND it was relevant at that moment in the discussion.

P.S. I didn't lose to Lou BECAUSE of CTE. In fact it was BECAUSE of CTE that I was able to win at all given my mental and physical state in that match. I was a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE example of a pool player in general and not a good representative of CTE at all. Which goes to show you that JUST USING CTE IS NOT A CURE FOR OTHER BAD HABITS.

P.P.S. If you do want to make a CTE money list then you would need to know the following information: Who played and for how much? Which player uses CTE as an aiming method and what does the other player use? If both players do NOT use CTE then the results don't go on the money list. If one does and the other doesn't then the results are recorded.

I am pretty sure that in the CTE player vs. non-cte player matches the CTE player will come out on top more often UNLESS the other player has a good aiming method as well and all else is equal. Obviously ME, cte user, vs. random pro non-aiming-system user will result in me losing more often due to the many other factors we have discussed many times.
Click to expand...

John,

You're amazing.

Bull Dog was the wrong analogy for you. I'll have to give an analogy some more thought.

Best Wishes.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
You match with Lou proved nothing about CTE's effiency or lack thereof. I believe that match was won and lost because of fundamentals, not aiming, not coaching nor psychology (though that may have played a part). That was my impression from watching the stream that day. Wonky fundamentals usually fail at the most inopportune moments.

When you get into winning statistics etc you need to be very, very careful when drawing conclusions, otherwise you risk falling prey to all kinds of third variable errors and logical absurdities. Many people have no idea how they aim, or at least cannot formulate it clearly. Almost everyone has been taught ghost ball or back of ball, if they are not entirely self taught. That does not mean they use these methods however. That observation nonewithstanding, if you were to compare winning records I think ghost ball would do fine....

Let's for a moment say that CTE did outperform other methods. Could it be that the people who activeley seek out aiming systems are more dedicated and practice more, and that these factors are responsible for their success? These kinds of problems is why you need large data sets, experiments, control groups etc...

Drawing statistical conclusions from a single case, such as yourself, is of very, very limited value, and you are smart enough to know that, I think.
Click to expand...

I mention it when appropriate. CTE helps me be a better player. It does not and cannot help me be a champion. To do that I need better fundamentals, better shot choices, better patterns, better mindset etc....

The $1000 set I won last week though was 100% helped because of being able to aim accurately. I say that because throughout the 10 ahead session I had many times where I had clutch shots and being able to aim them with 100% confidence allowed me to focus totally on the stroke and speed.

I also dogged a lot of easy shots due to a lack of focus. But I still won in 3 hours.

I know myself and my game and when I say something is helpful then it is. That's a MAJOR problem with the knockers....they only believe people who say CTE doesn't work and never believe those who say it does. As if people who can see clear improvement in their accuracy are somehow deluded but those who don't "get it" are fully self-aware.

And you're right, my form was the worst it's been in 30 years when I played Lou. I was a wreck.
 
I always go by feel 96 54.55%
Usually by feel, with aiming systems for hard shots 37 21.02%
Usually with aiming systems, by feel for easy shots 14 7.95%
I always use aiming systems 16 9.09%
I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink 13 7.39%

..................................
The results so far .
Why so much hate for the feelers ? :grin:

I can't believe nearly 8% are spray and pray shooters. :eek:
 
JoeyInCali said:
I always go by feel 96 54.55%
Usually by feel, with aiming systems for hard shots 37 21.02%
Usually with aiming systems, by feel for easy shots 14 7.95%
I always use aiming systems 16 9.09%
I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink 13 7.39%

..................................
The results so far .
Why so much hate for the feelers ? :grin:

I can't believe nearly 8% are spray and pray shooters. :eek:
Click to expand...

I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink :thumbup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2EsSfxuPn0
 
Shouldn't it be just as easy to disprove that CTE works. Learn how it works. Find a shot that does not work using CTE. Problem solved. FYI, I do not use an aiming system.
 
ENGLISH! said:
John,

Perhaps you should see a doctor.:wink:

You must have me confused with another Rick.

I have not played on a snooker table in over 40 years.

Best.

PS If you sincerely do not know my single issue regarding CTE after all of this time even before your hiatus, then you really should see a Doctor.
Click to expand...

He's thinking of champ, who provided ample, and hilarious, evidence of the power of cte.
 
I think we ought to have Max get to the bottom of it....maybe its a NASA conspiracy
 
Straightpool_99 said:
You match with Lou proved nothing about CTE's effiency or lack thereof. I believe that match was won and lost because of fundamentals, not aiming, not coaching nor psychology (though that may have played a part). That was my impression from watching the stream that day. Wonky fundamentals usually fail at the most inopportune moments.

When you get into winning statistics etc you need to be very, very careful when drawing conclusions, otherwise you risk falling prey to all kinds of third variable errors and logical absurdities. Many people have no idea how they aim, or at least cannot formulate it clearly. Almost everyone has been taught ghost ball or back of ball, if they are not entirely self taught. That does not mean they use these methods however. That observation nonewithstanding, if you were to compare winning records I think ghost ball would do fine....

Let's for a moment say that CTE did outperform other methods. Could it be that the people who activeley seek out aiming systems are more dedicated and practice more, and that these factors are responsible for their success? These kinds of problems is why you need large data sets, experiments, control groups etc...

Drawing statistical conclusions from a single case, such as yourself, is of very, very limited value, and you are smart enough to know that, I think.
Click to expand...

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:
 
JB Cases said:
Thank you, I am amazing. And handsome.
Click to expand...

John,

Now see... that second 'assertion' proves that you are extremely susceptible to even the most blatant of absurdities & assuredly do not understand anything about subjectivity vs objectivity.

Your wife's opinion may be that you are handsome & perhaps that of your mother.

But... you can not take those two extremely subjective matters & then make a truthful objective conclusion & statement based on them. That would be totally illogical.

I think you will come to your senses & agree if you will just do one thing...

like look in the mirror with a totally unbiased objective eye & viewpoint.

:wink:

Sorry, it was just wired.
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
They would be wrong. Been over that. If the guy who was sitting in my corner, Dennis Strickland, is allowed to coach me I will bet on Lou next time. I can't understand him when we are having a normal conversation much less with him speaking with me five feet away.

The guy is a jam up one pocket player who would CRUSH Lou. But it was of zero help to me because I couldn't play like him even if he did coach me.

The best part of it all was that there was a shot that CONVINCED Lou I had a coach. Lou mentioned it to me at the end of the first night and called it a grade A top level one pocket shot. The people on One Pocket.org though ALL criticized it as a HORRIBLE shot. And in fact Lou easily got out of it which means it wasn't that great a shot. It was a shot that Dennis Strickland would have NEVER played.

So, Lou can believe what he wants. He is more than welcome to come to OKC and we can get a private table and play with no one else there for $20,000-$50,000 when I have the extra money to bet. My condition will be a ten ahead set. I should have insisted on an ahead set and that's my number one regret among others for the match that was played.
Click to expand...


It was Dennis Spears not Strickland. And eye-witnesses contradict you:

Koop said:
I was there, sitting directly across from them and I would have to say he was definitely getting coached. A couple of guys I was sitting with were laughing in disbelief that they were getting away with it. I saw a couple of times towards the end of the night, John looked like he didn't have a clue what to do, the guy whispers something, and John comes with a very advanced shot that we didn't see all night.

Even though I was there I am speculating a bit too because I couldn't hear what was being said but...I'd bet a LOT of money that it wasn't just pats on the back and pep talking.
Click to expand...


jersey jer said:
I was there right next to Koop, and while I couldnt hear what Dennis was saying I'd bet my left nut he was being coached on specific shots and moves. The holding his hands in front of his mouth and whispering to John and ducking his head behind the pillar to say something from john was actually kinda comical. it looked like he was trying to be sneaky and didn't know how.

We spoke to Lou for a few short minutes last night afterwards and Lou knows/knew he was being coached at that point. He did say he was pissed about it, but more upset about some of the rolls, and the fact that with a max of 3 games left they shoulda finished it yesterday.

To Lou's credit he was as cool as a cuke, and it didnt seem to affect his composure. I know I wouldnt have been as calm if I was shooting with 20k in the middle.
Click to expand...

Lou Figueroa
 
Colin Colenso said:
Contradiction requires evidence, not speculation.

That JB, doesn't even know his name, seems to weaken that speculation.
Click to expand...

I remember the threads from around the time, and JB certainly knew his name then. If I remember correctly JB claimed he was there to give "encouragement". Not coaching, "encouragement".

Honestly, I don't think it matters much one way or the other now, given the result of the match. At the time I thought it should be pretty clear that having a high level player standing next to you, talking to you under his breath during play (whether it was actual coaching or just friendly encouragement as JB claimed) isn't really on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top