Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[cookie man]

Pull up the evidence where it it's not just somebody saying that it works. I'll wait another few years.

Just go to youtube and follow instructions. It's all there

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I've never heard CTE's "visuals" directly described in words.

Neil:
It's been stated many times on here, and there are real clear videos describing it.

I invite you or anybody to show us one of those real clear descriptions.

Here's one that showcases what you have been doing and saying wrong all along.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyCSgUtLKdk

If that's your example of a real clear description, then we define that very differently.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

This is truly like reading the comics ,, I'm sure theres some that are impressed by the money you spend to get attention whether it be by a 10 k match or a free case for what ever to you its all well spent money if it keeps you on the front page

1

Yep, its called marketing and I sincerely appreciate your contributions by continuing to insure my logo is seen by more people.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Stroking to the right does not necessarily send the OB to the left as you state in the video JB.

If you're bridging behind the effective pivot point, stroking to the right will squirt the CB left of the aim, and hence the OB to the right.

On these slow type roll in shots, the bridge is nearly always significantly shorter than the effective pivot point however.

This is one reason pros avoid these roll in type shots, unless the shot is pretty simple. They magnify stroke errors.

Note: This may not hold true in the case of bridge movement during the stroke, which often occurs if there is significant body movement.

Cheers,
Colin

Fair enough. I hope the intent of the lesson was clear.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

I heard you getting coached near the end of the last game the first night. That's why I said something to Ed.

And IF we play again we will negotiate -- you don't get to dictate diddly-do-da, starting with the locale. I flew to you last time. Next time you will come to me.

Lou Figueroa

You're lying. You heard no such thing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

From all that you have said here -- you have absolutely no clue why you lost that match, lol.

Lou Figueroa

Maybe not. Doesn't matter.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

IF we play again the rail needs to make JB post every cent.

Lou Figueroa

I posted every dollar I bet.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

I heard you getting coached near the end of the last game the first night. That's why I said something to Ed.

And IF we play again we will negotiate -- you don't get to dictate diddly-do-da, starting with the locale. I flew to you last time. Next time you will come to me.

Lou Figueroa

I will make you an offer and you can do what you want with it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

There is no evidence. It would be like me claiming I can see little green men on the table pointing to the aim spot. So then, if I run a 100 I can say, "See! The little green men are there."

It's absolutely ridiculous.

Just think of how everyone sets up different. No two players are seeing the shots the same way much less all the stuff CTErs claim.

Lou Figueroa

Wrong.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[ENGLISH!]

Would be great if everyone could speak just the way everyone else wants them to.

It's NOT about the way people speak at all.

It's about making statements that are factual when employing the 'if this then this' approach as logical 'proof' of something.

It sounds 'great' when one makes the IF part seem as though it is an undisputed fact to get to the THEN part to make it too appear as indisputable fact.

It's simply not Kosher when the IF part is nothing but one's opinion & assertion that is NOT undisputed. Hence the THEN part is not based on given fact.

 

[JB Cases]

#####
Soon that game is over, we finish the night at 8-6, and I walk over to the far side of the arena where AZers Koop and Jerry are sitting and I ask them if they could see what was going on in John’s corner and one of them says, “Oh yeah. It was totally obvious from here that he was getting coached. We had a clear view of it.”

So then I go up to Ed (owner of Sandcastle) and we have the following conversation:

Lou: “I got a complaint.”
Ed: “What is it?”
Lou: “John was getting coached by the black guy in his corner.”
Ed: “Oh yeah. I could see it from the booth. I was waiting for you to say something.”
Lou: “It can’t happen tomorrow.”

My crew slept the coaching. To be honest we didn’t anticipate someone would try that. In any case, I know they’ve beaten themselves up enough about it. So that’s the answer to why Lou’s corner didn’t say anything. The next day before John and I start up again, I go up to Ed:

Lou “There cannot be any coaching today.”
Ed: “I talked to John about it and he admitted that Dennis was telling him stuff but claims it was generic things to pump him up and I told him that even that can’t be going on.”
Lou: “He was getting coached and all I know is that I won’t tolerate it today.”

And what Ed does is to talk to Dennis, one of his room players, and tells him he cannot sit anywhere near John, and that was the end of that.

Here is my last comment on this subject: 1pocket is often likened to chess because so much of the game is the knowledge you accumulate over the years and bring to a game, knowing the right move and when to make it. In all my years of playing 1pocket, coaching has always been verboten and, whether it’s 1pocket or chess, it cannot possibly be considered anything but cheating to have a superior player whispering in your ear while playing a match.
#####

As to selling out the shot... I guess a coach the second day would have helped prevent that ;-)

Lou Figueroa

You were wrong when you wrote it and you are wrong still.

Did these guys see Dennis drawing layouts on an iPad for me? No....what did they see two people occasionally conversing?

As for Ed he asked his house pro to accommodate you to keep the peace.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

It's NOT about the way people speak at all.

It's about making statements that are factual when employing the 'if this then this' approach as logical 'proof' of something.

It sounds 'great' when one makes the IF part seem as though it is an undisputed fact to get to the THEN part to make it too appear as indisputable fact.

It's simply not Kosher when the IF part is nothing but one's opinion & assertion that is NOT undisputed. Hence the THEN part is not based on given fact.

Ok, in my experience, IF CTE is correctly used THEN it brings me to a shot line that seems to be 100% ACCURATE.

 

[Neil]

If that's your example of a real clear description, then we define that very differently.

pj
chgo

Did you read the part under the video that describes it?

 

[Neil]

It's NOT about the way people speak at all.

It's about making statements that are factual when employing the 'if this then this' approach as logical 'proof' of something.

It sounds 'great' when one makes the IF part seem as though it is an undisputed fact to get to the THEN part to make it too appear as indisputable fact.

It's simply not Kosher when the IF part is nothing but one's opinion & assertion that is NOT undisputed. Hence the THEN part is not based on given fact.

That's funny you saying that, when it hasn't stopped you, Pat, Lou, and a host of others from doing just that- having opinions and assumptions that you spew out as facts all the time about CTE. Doesn't even matter to any of you that your assertions aren't even true.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Ok, in my experience, IF CTE is correctly used THEN it brings me to a shot line that seems to be 100% ACCURATE.

That would be fine as that expresses your impressions from your experience & it still leaves much to be determined as to the WHY that might be, if true.

The problem is the fact that you would not & do not know when any miss might be truly attributed to CTE instead of your supposed bad stroke.

So... would the basis that you use to decide that the line that CTE brings you seems to be 100% accurate be based on that of your subjective perception of the shot at hand?

If not, then on what else could it be based?

Best Wishes.

 

[Banks]

Many others have failed with that "evidence."

 

[Mikjary]

Next month I will likely have 20k to make a challenge. I shouldn't do it because that money can be better spent on my business but I think the time is right. So he will get an invitation to come to Oklahoma City and play a 10 ahead set for 20k. We will see what happens then. I will put the challenge on AZB when I can post the money.

We can get a private room with one camera to stream it and no commentary and no one else but us.

I'd like to see some 9 or 10 ball played for this pissin' contest. I think it'd be a much better match up.

Best,
Mike

 

[JB Cases]

That would be fine as that expresses your impressions from your experience & it still leaves much to be determined as to the WHY that might be, if true.

The problem is the fact that you would not & do not know when any miss might be truly attributed to CTE instead of your supposed bad stroke.

So... would the basis that you use to decide that the line that CTE brings you seems to be 100% accurate be based on that of your subjective perception of the shot at hand?

If not, then on what else could it be based?

Best Wishes.

I personally have NO subjective perception of the shot being faced. I use objective visuals to align myself to the shot and come into the shot based on that body position. When I am down on the shot I often do not know if it correct because of this objectivity. I don't take shots that look right or get off of shots that look wrong BECAUSE I simply accept that the shot line I landed on is right.

I know it is right because I have tested it against geometrically correct drawn shot lines for shots around a 180 degree arc. So therefore all I can rely on consciously is the relationship between the cue ball and the object ball. This is an objective exercise which require zero conscious subjectivity.

That doesn't mean that you are using it right or that you don't have a much different visual experience than me. I can never rule that out but of the people I have introduced to CTE most of them end up with the cue in the right shot line by using the same lines I can align too,

 

[JB Cases]

I'd like to see some 9 or 10 ball played for this pissin' contest. I think it'd be a much better match up.

Best,
Mike

Could be. I'd play an all-around.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If that's your example of a real clear description, then we define that very differently.

Neil:
Did you read the part under the video that describes it?

You mean this?

"Please note that as you are picking up the 15 and 30 degree perceptions in full stance, they are just that--perceptions. In the prepivot position, you're looking directly 100% down your cue with your vision center which means the perceptions are acquired from across your vision center. Do NOT look for a tick to tick 2D line directly from your vision center."

Again, if that's your example of a clear description, then we define that very differently.

pj
chgo