My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

[ENGLISH!]

Maybe you should ask Robin where he got it from. I believe he will answer truthfully. After all it can be researched

That's not the point at all.

Even if Robin meant that it came from Stan. He was basically called a liar for a possible incorrect paraphrase over the difference between saying 'taking over the world' vs 'spreading all over the world'.

That is completely inappropriate & uncalled for.

But, that kind of thing is what some almost constantly do whenever someone is not in complete agreement with them.

When one is not in complete agreement they are called "haters" & "liars" at nearly every turn.

All that might have been necessary was to make the correction with a possible introduction of... 'you are mistaken, that is not what I said, what is said was...

Again, I think almost any unbiased reader can see the truth of matters.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[Neil]

dis·in·gen·u·ous
ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/
adjective
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical
"that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act"

Your post here is probably a near perfect example of YOU & what YOU do, twist & distort.

I have had to point out such in my defense TOO MANY TIMES for me to remember. count, or keep track of.

You either intentionally twist & distort or... you have some reading comprehension issue, perhaps caused by a bias on your part.

I've made NO demands. I have made sincere requests by expressing my wishes.

I made NO statement that I did not want certain people to post in this thread. I made it known that I did not want certain 'arguments' or positions to be stated here as they have been so stated many many times in other threads.

I think most unbiased individuals can see the truth of matters here & put my faith in them & their intelligence.

Best Wishes to ALL.

You have got to be kidding me! You actually highlighted the part of the definition that stated that we know more than we are letting on to? Did you even understand what that actually said? Yet, you totally missed this part "insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical" How does one have that selective of reading, and yet claim to be some kind of authority on any subject?

And, you are correct in your last statement. Most do see the truth, which is why so many lately have told you STFU on here.

P.S. Still waiting for YOUR posts explaining how CTE works and why it is not the most objective system known.

 

[Neil]

Good Post, Sir & I thank YOU for YOUR input.

The only real concern I have is for those that might waste time, more than a year for TonyTheTiger, & never get that for which they are pursuing, 'an objective aiming system'. A waste of one's valuable time is harmful.

If that description would be retracted & never repeated, then perhaps all of the hub bub would go away along with it.

Please do not let the attempted 'bullying' put the thought of going away back into your mind as it did a while back. You & your experience are an asset to AZB & all of the many many that only read & hardly ever if ever post, along with others that might learn from your experience & what you say in your posts.

Best Wishes & Thanks Again for YOUR input.

Let's say we take you at your word on the above. So, given that you made a true statement about your only concern about wasting time of others, then why have you wasted so much of their time yourself in your feeble attempts to discredit the system instead of allowing the users to explain it without having to reply to your constant barrage of objections and misstatements?

P.S. Just who is bullying him that you would make that statement? Or are you just fanning the flames again to cause dissension instead of peace?

 

[JB Cases]

Well...

It took less than 7 hours overnight & on the 10th post for THIS thread to start down the death spiral into the hell hole of anything associated with anything to do with the claim of an 'objective aiming system' more commonly known as CTE.

It seems that what the proponents, advocates, & defenders beyond rational logical reason of such, want for their threads is NOT allowed, by them, for those on the other side of the coin.

So... I think that type of hypocrisy should result in ANY requests or 'demands' for keeping 'negativity' out of 'their' threads as null & void or not even worthy of consideration. I've actually seen very few that have asked any questions regarding help in learning how to use or better use CTE & the few that I have seen have been rather rudely & with no civility been rebuffed & called 'haters' for trying the learn the method that some say must be learned before any substantive questions can even be asked. How illogical & nonsensical & disingenuous it that?

If everyone was more like morht/Monty, perhaps the CTE 'war' could be pulled back into a civilized summit meeting where matters might be discussed in a civil & somewhat polite manner.

But...

Tit for Tat, pot calling kettle black, hypocrisy, or whatever, shows how disingenuous & bias those 'no negativity' requests on their part were & are. There can be no question or doubt regarding what CTE is. It must be taken 100% as it is 'presented' & described or... you're a 'hater' & 'liar' or worse.

There were rules of war back in the day & when one side violated them the other side could call foul, but when that side also violated the same rule of war, they lost ALL credibility when they again called foul.

I think that most of the general membership & visitors that only read here at AZB can see the reality of matters & realize in what camp the true logic & objective determinations actually live in regards to the 'questions' about any supposed 'objective aiming system'.

Logic & science on one side...

& fanciful, speculative, whimsical, & a seemingly endless fallacy filled 'analogies' that are not even really relative to the issue constantly being put forth by the other side with no real answers to the legitimate questions regarding such a grandiose, intriguing, & solitary claim.

A CTE proponent sort of describe CTE to me in PM as the required perceptions not really being objective but that it is a systematic approach that results in a lot less guessing for him vs the ghost ball method from which he immediately came.

I think I, & even PJ could agree with that as long as the adjective of 'objective' is not applied to it & left out of any description.

I think many, if not most all of us, were filled with enthusiasm when we evolved from the ghost ball concept to what ever more visually solid approach or method to which we went. Perhaps that is partly why some so vehemently defend 'their' method or 'system' even though it is not WHAT they think or believe that it is.

Perhaps 2 or 3 member debate teams shoud be established & ALL others be kept out of a thread for the purpose of debating whether or not CTE is truly an 'objective aiming system'.

But it would need a moderator to call foul for any disallowed illogical arguments.

Perhaps then the truth would become blatantly apparent & the 'war' could be put to end with an appropriate conclusion & a Truce.

Perhaps then a cooperative effort could be had to try to determine the true value.

Best Wishes to ALL.

I don't think you understood the nature of Wilson's warning to you.

The forum isn't a place where a person can incessantly poison all discussions with their overly anal OCD point of view.

You're hung up on the use of the word OBJECTIVE without being willing to discuss what it means in the context of aiming in pool.

I am glad you started a thread to talk about JUST THAT.

But to think that you can have a thread where you get to assert things AS FACT without rebuttal is silly. No one ever wanted you not to be able to voice your opinion in other threads either. But in those threads you make a point and then REFUSE TO CONSIDER any other counterpoint and instead just repeat your assertion incessantly.

If you make an assertion about something then you have to explain WHY you feel that way. So far you assert that CTE - IN THE TITLE - is not objective. But you don't explain WHY you think that.

I think it's an important point worthy of discussion. Not only the is/is not question but also if not then how much objectivity vs. how much subjectivity.

If your view is 100% subjective then you're flat out wrong based on all know definitions of objectivity and subjectivity.

If you ask a player how he aims and one person says, I just guess and another person says I use the pocket to trace a mental line through the back of the object ball and imagine a fully formed transparent ball in line with the object ball and then lay my cue down so that the center of the cueball goes through the center of the phantom ball then THAT is objective even though the imagining of a phantom ball part of it is subjectively dependent on the persons ability to imagine objects precisely sized and spaced.

Yesterday I was in a building and used my feet to measure off the space to see if it was the right size for a table. My colleague didn't measure and said it looked big wide enough for a 9fter. I paced it off and declared it would be tight.

The owner of the building looked at the ceiling tiles and gave the accurate measurement based on the number of them spanning the room. His number was the most objective of the three.

So honestly Rick I know you are hung up on the absolute here but in reality what we are talking about is, as I said above, a spectrum from purely subjective to mostly objective. I agree with you, CTE is not totally objective. But to say it is not objective at all is simply not true.

And the title is "Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE"

So since CTE is mentioned here is the truth per my experience regarding it.

 

[ENGLISH!]

My bad. 3 years and almost 13,000 posts and guessing 7,000 pm's.
And your qualifications to properly discuss CTE are?

I was not talking about the accuracy of the numbers but the implication you made using them that all of them involved CTE & that could not be farther from the truth.

Again you display the fallacy of your 'logic'.

One does not need to have ever seen a pool table in order for them to properly comment on or discuss the subject of what is objective & what is subjective.

The amazing thing is that the vocal CTE proponents seem to not have a clue as to the difference or... they are being disingenuous.

Best Wishes to ALL.

PS1 I think every unbiased reader can see the ever ongoing tactic by nearly every vocal CTE proponent of 'attack' the messengerS instead of making logical 'arguments' to support one's position. That is very very telling when one has to resort to that tactic.

PS2 Arguing for or against with each other was NOT the intention nor wish for this thread, BUT it has been hypocritically derailed & hijacked into the hellish abyss of the 'attack' the messenger tactic with almost no logical 'argument' on behalf of CTE with the exception of a few fail logic attempts.

 

[HawaiianEye]

The only real concern I have is for those that might waste time, more than a year for TonyTheTiger, & never get that for which they are pursuing, 'an objective aiming system'. A waste of one's valuable time is harmful.

My first inclination when I hear "Tony the Tiger" is to say "IT'S GREAT"!, but it's not great when Tony can't learn how to aim properly.

If ANYONE uses a system for a year and can't figure out how to aim, then they may not be made for playing pool. Not on a high level, anyway.

Take that however you want to.

 

[336Robin]

Thats awesome! Aiming by Ronco!

You definitely have a fan. Aiming by Ronco! lmao!

On the serious side...great post! Stick aiming works pretty good actually for remembering what you did on angles under the half ball hit, its almost scary how well it can work, and confidence building, very.

I don't see what's so important about arguing about CTE being objective or not. It's clear to me that most people who claim that it is, has no real idea what the word entails, or are using the word in an ad-hoc definition of their own designs. It's marketing, and clique politics. Nothing more, nothing less. These are pool players and instructors, not scientists. No actual scientist would claim a system as a "center pocket system" without tons of disclaimers and explanations, because balls act differently with different speeds and spins (yes even on the vertical axis), not to mention balls being different etc.

On the matter of objectivity, I think a truely objective system could be made, on paper at least. The easiest would be a stick aiming system. Such and such a number of tips (size defined obviosly) away from center will produce x amount of angle at a standard speed and spin under standard conditions (which would be a PIA to define). Then you could have a table with compensations etc. You would also need to make a system to measure the angle to the pocket of course, which would be more of a challenge. Nobody would actually use such a system, though, because you'd either be looking up data in a book or having to memorize at least 75 different tip alignments (according to PJ). Then there's the matter of the compensations. Someone would have to invent a measurement system as well. The problem as well would be that the implementation would be subjective (obviously in the strictest sense), but also in a more general sense. We are not perfect machines, and we will not always be able to accurately aim the stick at a target outside of the ball, for instance. You might be bette at certain aims than at others etc.

Good systems are simple. A few standard alignments, and the subconscious fills out the blanks. Most good systems are of this type. It appears CTE is like this as well, from the videos Dan White posted. I could clearly see Stan Shuffet steering, as could anyone else with their eyes open. I believe this is what makes good shotmakers. When they are wrong, their subconscious make the correct adjustments with good timing and they end up making the ball anyway.

We've all experienced shooting a shot and feeling the arm swoop. Sometimes it works and at other times it fails in almost comical fashion. As we get better the fails become fewer and fewer, because we align more or less correctly for the most part. You will probably not even feel the corrections. Still you will have unwanted spin on the ball every now and then, even if you play decently.

Also it's weird how angry people get over this issue. Pool is supposed to be fun. When I watched this commercial in the 90's my first reaction was amusement, then pity for the people who needed the product and then both believed that it worked and that using it would be a good idea . So long as using something is not directly detrimental to a persons life and well being, I believe it should be left to peoples common sense to protect them. You will make errors, and if the products are of a harmless type, you will learn from your mistakes. Of course I've bought almost every aiming system ever created, so I took the expensive course on the matter, lol:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GeF7A05zQ8

 

[Neil]

I was not talking about the accuracy of the numbers but the implication you made using them that all of them involved CTE & that could not be farther from the truth.

Again you display the fallacy of your 'logic'.

One does not need to have ever seen a pool table in order for them to properly comment on or discuss the subject of what is objective & what is subjective.

The amazing thing is that the vocal CTE proponents seem to not have a clue as to the difference or... they are being disingenuous.

Best Wishes to ALL.

PS1 I think every unbiased reader can see the ever ongoing tactic by nearly every vocal CTE proponent of 'attack' the messengerS instead of making logical 'arguments' to support one's position. That is very very telling when one has to resort to that tactic.

PS2 Arguing for or against with each other was NOT the intention nor wish for this thread, BUT it has been hypocritically derailed & hijacked into the hellish abyss of the 'attack' the messenger tactic with almost no logical 'argument' on behalf of CTE with the exception of a few fail logic attempts.

Why do you say CTE users attack while calling them stupid because you don't agree with the actual definitions of "objective" and they do; and then calling them a synonym of the word "liars"? Do you not think others see right through that? You attack others, while claiming they are attacking you. Just who is trying to deceive who here?

You state that we do not make logical arguments, yet many times the definition of "objective" has been given to you, only to be ignored by you. So, just who is the one actually not being logical in all of this?

 

[JB Cases]

I will state AGAIN...

That the purpose & intention of MY THREAD is NOT to discuss or ARGUE whether or not any particular system or method is an objective aiming 'system'.

The purpose & intentions of THIS, MY THREAD is to have a place where individuals can comment on WHY there can NOT be such a system.

Just like the advocates or proponents of such a supposed system basically 'demand' that no opposing comments be made in 'their' threads so that those that want to discuss such can do so without dissension & distraction...

I respectfully ask, AGAIN that no comments or arguments be made FOR any system being an objective 'system'.

That is NOT for what THIS, MY THREAD is about.

I Thank mohrt/Monty for respecting my wishes & would kindly & politely ask that others please do the same.

In fact. I politely ask that those that have made posts NOT of the nature that I intended for this thread kindly edit them out.

Best Wishes to ALL.

PS I made a reference to hypocrisy in my OP & it appears that my prediction is coming to reality.

You are asking people to say why something cannot be the way it is?

So if I made a post declaring the earth to be flat on a public forum and asked people to back me up and agree with me I should be surprised when people with proof to the contrary show up?

If you were interested in debate that helps further everyone's understanding of all viewpoints then you wouldn't have a problem with conversation about the central point of objectivity.

You simply cannot expect to make an assertion on a public forum without expecting some rebuttal and discourse.

I have adequately explained how I understand subjectivity and objectivity as pertains to aiming in pool. I would think that you would want to discuss this or are you hung up on just the concept of total or 100% objectivity?

If so then sure, I agree, no system is totally or 100% objective. And the REASON none can ever be is the fudge factor called human cognition. We are not precise measuring tools. We can't plot a grid mentally with machine precision. Thus we must make the best judgement we can using all the information available to us. Every bit of true data we have to use reduces the fudge factor enabling us to make consistent decisions with repeatable results.

Everything we do to acquire factual knowledge should be for the purpose of making consistent, rational decisions. But at the end of the day we are NOT robots so all we can do is get as close as humanly possible to an unbiased decision when faced with making one.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I don't think you understood the nature of Wilson's warning to you.

The forum isn't a place where a person can incessantly poison all discussions with their overly anal OCD point of view.

You're hung up on the use of the word OBJECTIVE without being willing to discuss what it means in the context of aiming in pool.

I am glad you started a thread to talk about JUST THAT.

But to think that you can have a thread where you get to assert things AS FACT without rebuttal is silly. No one ever wanted you not to be able to voice your opinion in other threads either. But in those threads you make a point and then REFUSE TO CONSIDER any other counterpoint and instead just repeat your assertion incessantly.

If you make an assertion about something then you have to explain WHY you feel that way. So far you assert that CTE - IN THE TITLE - is not objective. But you don't explain WHY you think that.

I think it's an important point worthy of discussion. Not only the is/is not question but also if not then how much objectivity vs. how much subjectivity.

If your view is 100% subjective then you're flat out wrong based on all know definitions of objectivity and subjectivity.

If you ask a player how he aims and one person says, I just guess and another person says I use the pocket to trace a mental line through the back of the object ball and imagine a fully formed transparent ball in line with the object ball and then lay my cue down so that the center of the cueball goes through the center of the phantom ball then THAT is objective even though the imagining of a phantom ball part of it is subjectively dependent on the persons ability to imagine objects precisely sized and spaced.

Yesterday I was in a building and used my feet to measure off the space to see if it was the right size for a table. My colleague didn't measure and said it looked big wide enough for a 9fter. I paced it off and declared it would be tight.

The owner of the building looked at the ceiling tiles and gave the accurate measurement based on the number of them spanning the room. His number was the most objective of the three.

So honestly Rick I know you are hung up on the absolute here but in reality what we are talking about is, as I said above, a spectrum from purely subjective to mostly objective. I agree with you, CTE is not totally objective. But to say it is not objective at all is simply not true.

And the title is "Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE"

So since CTE is mentioned here is the truth per my experience regarding it.

John,

I can not keep up with the very high number of completely inapplicable 'analogies' that you make along with the disassociated incorrect 'conclusions' & other incorrect statements.

Also the hypocrisy of your statement regarding OCD & being incessant. I wish had one(1) dollar for every time that you have said that IT is an objective system or method.

It is YOU & other CTE proponents that either seem to not understand what is objective & what is not objective or... you & they, in part, or in total, are being disingenuous regarding it.

'Things' are not partially objective. they are not a percentage objective. It either is or it is not. Something can have an objective component(s) but still be totally subjective in it's nature & as to it's totality for it's purpose.

The statement of Patrick that I quoted to open this thread is ALL that anyone should need to make a logical, common sense, rational, critically thought out, non science bending conclusion whether CTE is of an objective nature regarding the final line for the purpose of aiming or aligning in pool. AND that is what I asked all readers of such to do. Read it with that intention & be unbiased & make their own determination.

Please see your statement that I put in Blue. I think rather many of us are waiting for Stan to do just that.

You & others seem to want to take the discussion off onto all kinds of minutia of what is truly disassociated analogies & then apply them to CTE & form the 'conclusion' that you want. That also seems to be a tactic to avoid staying on the specific matter at hand. Poolplaya9's assessment of the vocal CTE proponents is probably exactly correct IMO. (I'll try to find it for reference purposes.)

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

PS It seems to me & others have said that it seems that you live for this argument. Why did you return to AZB? Until you did the subject was very very quiet for many many months. I also found it interesting that your return was rather very close to that of Stan ending his rather lengthy silence here on AZB. if the relative numbers are so small here on AZB, then why devote the time & effort that you do here regarding CTE?

 

[JB Cases]

My first inclination when I hear "Tony the Tiger" is to say "IT'S GREAT"!, but it's not great when Tony can't learn how to aim properly.

If ANYONE uses a system for a year and can't figure out how to aim, then they may not be made for playing pool. Not on a high level, anyway.

Take that however you want to.

I guess I have missed out on the Tony the Tiger thing. If anyone has any links to this person's posts to shed some light on what issues he has I'd love to see them.

I agree though, in general when it comes to these subjects that a lot has to do with the willingness of the student to actually study the material BUT it also sometimes takes another person to point out various aspects.

I have a student here in OKC, Robert Turner, whom I turned on to CTE. I loaned him my DVD and he would ask me for clarification when we saw each other in the pool room. Now he is progressing nicely.

I can totally understand if someone just doesn't "get" the material. CTE type aiming is a whole other paradigm in playing pool and unlike anything taught in the books and videos available growing up. Certainly wasn't taught in any close form by any instructor I took lessons from. So part of learning it is to completely empty your cup so to speak and rebuild how you look at aiming.

It's crazy and making a 100% commitment means that you have to turn a corner and go all in. Not making that comittment means that you will have periods of doubt.

I did.

Yep, you heard that right. I had times that I was like SCREW CTE, I will stick with what Hal taught me and with stick aiming though and forget about CTE. But I finally made a commitment to learn it properly and give it full attention until I understood how to apply it. Specifically there was a day when I literally said from this point on I will use CTE all the time.

And I did from that day on. I don't know who Tony the Tiger is but I know that I had help from other CTE users to clarify the finer points. And in return I have helped others and if Tony wants help I am happy to give what I can.

 

[ENGLISH!]

My first inclination when I hear "Tony the Tiger" is to say "IT'S GREAT"!, but it's not great when Tony can't learn how to aim properly.

If ANYONE uses a system for a year and can't figure out how to aim, then they may not be made for playing pool. Not on a high level, anyway.

Take that however you want to.

The thing is that he was looking for improvement so as to cut down on missed shots. I can't remember the exact level he thought himself to be, but it was no slouch.

He was looking for that 'objective aiming system'. He put in the time. He tried. He asked for help. He was basically driven away.

He had some success with it, but like others, he found holes that he could not close 'objectively' & hence never knew when one would pop up, but then one starts to realize, this looks like one of those.

When I asked one of the best players in my area about CTE, he almost yelled, 'Yeah... but it has holes.' He then added, 'They ALL do & that's why you need more than one system.'

I guess you can also take that however you want.

I know I use multiple methods but I still sometimes mess up by not switching when I should. There is sometimes that grey area of 'is it right or is this that hole'. I have that issue at a point when using the shadow.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

I can not keep up with the very high number of completely inapplicable 'analogies' that you make along with the disassociated incorrect 'conclusions' & other incorrect statements.

Also the hypocrisy of your statement regarding OCD & being incessant. I wish had one(1) dollar for every time that you have said that IT is an objective system or method.

It is YOU & other CTE proponents that either seem to not understand what is objective & what is not objective or... you & they, in part, or in total, are being disingenuous regarding it.

'Things' are not partially objective. they are not a percentage objective. It either is or it is not. Something can have an objective component(s) but still be totally subjective in it's nature & as to it's totality for it's purpose.

The statement of Patrick that I quoted to open this thread is ALL that anyone should need to make a logical, common sense, rational, critically thought out, non science bending conclusion whether CTE is of an objective nature regarding the final line for the purpose of aiming or aligning in pool. AND that is what I asked all readers of such to do. Read it with that intention & be unbiased & make their own determination.

Please see your statement that I put in Blue. I think rather many of us are waiting for Stan to do just that.

You & others seem to want to take the discussion off onto all kinds of minutia of what is truly disassociated analogies & then apply them to CTE & form the 'conclusion' that you want. That also seems to be a tactic to avoid staying on the specific matter at hand. Poolplaya9's assessment of the vocal CTE proponents is probably exactly correct IMO. (I'll try to find it for reference purposes.)

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

PS It seems to me & others have said that it seems that you live for this argument. Why did you return to AZB? Until you did the subject was very very quiet for many many months. I also found it interesting that your return was rather very close to that of Stan ending his rather lengthy silence here on AZB. if the relative numbers are so small here on AZB, then why devote the time & effort that you do here regarding CTE?

Stan, myself and every CTE user who participates in these discussion has made every attempt in numerous ways to explain WHY they assert anything pertaining to CTE.

As for your theories, my return had to do with something I said about AZB on Facebook and that led to a discussion between Mike and I about me posting on AZB again.

Yes the numbers are small here but that doesn't mean we should allow untruth to flower. As I said, on youtube we are doing great. And I personally signed a lease an hour ago that will allow me to build a training facility and put up more videos. I am excited because one of the things I will do is to take posts like yours and put them to a group of players IN REAL LIFE and work out the answers ON THE TABLE on video or on live stream, recorded for everyone else to see on demand.

Why is this subject so important to me?

Simple, Hal Houle chose to give me some of his time and it forever changed how I look at pool and how I play pool. I didn't seek him out, never participated in aiming conversations/debates and thought, as many still do, that ONLY trial and error brute force is the only way to learn to pool. So it's important to me to pass on what this man started and not allow inaccurate (in my opinion) information to blossom about his methods.

As for saying CTE is 100% objective, I have said that and it is my opinion that it is close enough to be practically 100% objective. At least that is how it seems to me for the reasons I have outlined dozens of times. However for the purpose of your thread I will agree that it is NOT 100% objective and settle for 99%.

I do NOT agree that things are either subjective or objective. Like a light switch. It is a matter of perspective. One view can be an illusion and the other view can be the actual state. The illusion however can be taken as the reality and even defended to the death if one maintains only one perspective. (and yes this applies to both sides of a debate as well)

 

[JB Cases]

The thing is that he was looking for improvement so as to cut down on missed shots. I can't remember the exact level he thought himself to be, but it was no slouch.

He was looking for that 'objective aiming system'. He put in the time. He tried. He asked for help. He was basically driven away.

He had some success with it, but like others, he found holes that he could not close 'objectively' & hence never knew when one would pop up, but then one starts to realize, this looks like one of those.

When I asked one of the best players in my area about CTE, he almost yelled, 'Yeah... but it has holes.' He then added, 'They ALL do & that's why you need more than one system.'

I guess you can also take that however you want.

I know I use multiple methods but I still sometimes mess up by not switching when I should. There is sometime that grey area of is it right or is this that hole.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

Where are the holes? I mean why can't anyone just diagram them?

CTE users have repeatedly asked you (and anyone) to diagram them.

Please. Wouldn't that be helpful?

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

On the matter of objectivity, I think a truely objective system could be made, on paper at least. The easiest would be a stick aiming system. Such and such a number of tips (size defined obviosly) away from center will produce x amount of angle at a standard speed and spin under standard conditions (which would be a PIA to define). Then you could have a table with compensations etc. You would also need to make a system to measure the angle to the pocket of course, which would be more of a challenge. Nobody would actually use such a system, though, because you'd either be looking up data in a book or having to memorize at least 75 different tip alignments (according to PJ). Then there's the matter of the compensations. Someone would have to invent a measurement system as well.

Has already been done. Marvin Chin. "Billiards Accuracy". He invented the "equal/opposite" method. Jimmy Reid highlighted it in a few of his instructional videos. Can be proven geometrically on paper, and on a table. And it works with the larger cueball on the barbox as well. I'm not sure CTE can do that (that's an assumption - I've never heard the big ball being addressed in CTE conversation).

 

[ENGLISH!]

Why do you say CTE users attack while calling them stupid because you don't agree with the actual definitions of "objective" and they do; and then calling them a synonym of the word "liars"? Do you not think others see right through that? You attack others, while claiming they are attacking you. Just who is trying to deceive who here?

You state that we do not make logical arguments, yet many times the definition of "objective" has been given to you, only to be ignored by you. So, just who is the one actually not being logical in all of this?

Why do you present False 'Hypothesis' that are suggestive with YOUR Spin on matters ABOUT others when you pretend to ask 'questions' of them?

Why do you almost always mean to mislead readers?

Why do you not understand the proper meaning of the word objective when it is put into the context of a phrase with other words such as ''objective aiming system"?

Why is it that you almost always want to play 'games' with those that are not in agreement with you instead of having a genuine discussion about the subject matter.

Why is it that you think you are the only one capable of playing the 'games' that you do & using the tactics that you try to use?

Best Wishes & Prayers for You.

 

[Neil]

Why do you present False 'Hypothesis' that are suggestive with YOUR Spin on matters ABOUT others when you pretend to ask 'questions' of them?
Name one. I'm not pretending anything. You just are afraid to answer, or you can't answer, so you cast aspersions on me instead.
Why do you almost always mean to mislead readers?
I never do. Why are you doing it now?
Why do you not understand the proper meaning of the word objective when it is put into the context of a phrase with other words such as ''objective aiming system"?
I do understand it. That is why I have given you numerous definitions of it.
Why is it that you almost always want to play 'games' with those that are not in agreement with you instead of having a genuine discussion about the subject matter.
I'm not playing any games. I asked you honest answers. You decided to play games and not answer questions asked of you like you always do. Numerous questions have been asked of you, yet all you do is cast name calling at others instead of answering them. You are the one that doesn't want an honest discussion. Heck, you already stated that no one that disagrees with your opinion is allowed to post.
Why is it that you think you are the only one capable of playing the 'games' that you do & using the tactics that you try to use?

Best Wishes & Prayers for You.

To your last line, I'm not playing any games. You are. Funny how every time anyone on here ask you a question, they are playing games.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Why do you say CTE users attack while calling them stupid because you don't agree with the actual definitions of "objective" and they do; and then calling them a synonym of the word "liars"? Do you not think others see right through that? You attack others, while claiming they are attacking you. Just who is trying to deceive who here?

You state that we do not make logical arguments, yet many times the definition of "objective" has been given to you, only to be ignored by you. So, just who is the one actually not being logical in all of this?

Sorry...

I'm not falling for the baiting of ALL of YOUR FALSE HYPOTHESIS of your supposedly genuine questions.

I could respond in kind far better than you & employ the same tactics but I've been asked to not do such.

So... Instead.

Best Wishes & Prayers for You.

 

[Neil]

Sorry...

I'm not falling for the baiting of ALL of YOUR FALSE HYPOTHESIS of your supposedly genuine questions.

I could respond in kind far better than you & employ the same tactics but I've been asked to not do such.

So... Instead.

Best Wishes & Prayers for You.

Oh?? And just who asked you not to have an honest discussion on here? I wish you would employ the same tactics. I'm asking you honest questions and you won't give an honest answer to my questions, or anyone else's questions. Just what false hypothesis are you even referring to? Why is it that anytime someone ask you anything, you either totally avoid it, or don't answer it while calling that person a liar?

Discussion take more than one person. Yet, you seem to be the only one that is allowed to say anything unless someone happens to agree with you. So far, you have had one "maybe" agree with you in this thread.

 

[cookie man]

The thing is that he was looking for improvement so as to cut down on missed shots. I can't remember the exact level he thought himself to be, but it was no slouch.

He was looking for that 'objective aiming system'. He put in the time. He tried. He asked for help. He was basically driven away.

He had some success with it, but like others, he found holes that he could not close 'objectively' & hence never knew when one would pop up, but then one starts to realize, this looks like one of those.

When I asked one of the best players in my area about CTE, he almost yelled, 'Yeah... but it has holes.' He then added, 'They ALL do & that's why you need more than one system.'

I guess you can also take that however you want.

I know I use multiple methods but I still sometimes mess up by not switching when I should. There is sometime that grey area of is it right or is this that hole.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

No one has ever posted what exactly a hole is or what they mean by saying that.
And one of the best players in your area made all five shots with CTE.