Nice to know that you aren't arrogant, condescending, or insulting.
My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE
- Thread starter ENGLISH!
- Start date
- Status
Nice to know that you aren't arrogant, condescending, or insulting.
Even JB said that on his visit to Stan's there were shots that did not fit CTE & Stan explained that for those shots one goes back to trial & error 'with the old methods' to figure them out.
IF CTE is objective & shot #5 is an over cut with ETB & a thickening pivot as Stan said that it would be (& I found it to such)...
&...it can not be made with ETA & a thinning pivot, would you call that a hole?
Now you're going to say 'BUT it can be made with ETA & thinning pivot'
Well, that is the crux of the matter & why the 'it's an objective aiming system' is the issue.
When shot objectively, the objective visual of CTE along with ETA & the precisely defined pivot sends the ball on ONE outcome angle & hence will not pocket the ball.
That is, unless one allows their subjectivity & that subjective perception to come into play & further thin the shot in some manner.
I'm just using this as an example as it is a known situation & can easily be explained.
There should be no need to tell, diagram, or whatever as it is dependent on whether or not it is an objective or subjective method.
No one has said that there are shots that Gerry, or Monty, or Stan, can't make. That is not what is meant when one says there are holes.
It means that they can not be made without a subjective interpretation & input in execution.
But... the real issue is that some can not seem to use reasonable rational, logic & critical non science bending thinking to make a proper determination.
I don't know why I give you a second of my time because I 'know' that there is no hope in you ever seeing the proper rational, logical, conclusion.
Best Wishes to ALL
PS I am NOT the only one to ever say that it has holes.
I would say that it's nice to know that you don't even seem to know what those are & are not, but...
It's not nice to know that.
Best Wishes to ALL.
But Stan, myself, and many others pocket shot 5 with eta and a thinning pivot just fine with our objective system. Guess it's not much of a hole, Thanks.
It's a shame that after all your posts you are still on the wrong track
Last edited:
Yea many people that have never learned CTE properly make that wrong assumption.
And, you still haven't read, or at least don't understand the article I posted about subjectivity vs. objectivity. Objectivity can be learned from experience. Yet, you constantly dismiss that fact because it just doesn't fit your agenda.
No one has EVER published any diagram that I can showing how the CTE line and the GB line diverge at the back of the cueball.
No one in any book, video or otherwise has ever mentioned it either.
Patrick is trying to downplay it as are you but both of you NEVER heard a single person mention it in any format until I did.
You guys keep wanting to know why CTE works and why it is so objective. I presented you with an observation which I believe is a reason why it works and why it can be put at the "very objective" end of the spectrum. I showed you something NO ONE EVER mentioned on any forum before as far as I know.
I have been in the pool rooms for 35 years. You can save the BS about how great you were at 13. This is a forum full of pool players after all.
I didn't call you a liar, I am just calling BS on your assertion that someone else ever said anything about the Center to Edge line and the GB Line convergence. The REASON I discovered it Rick is because unlike you I actually THINK about how CTE works and draw out diagrams to test out my thoughts. Then I take it to the table to work it out.
You want to know why I think something is OBJECTIVE then I give you reasons I think it.
As for the five shot video, I told you I don't have any answers for you YET. I will later when I have tables and video cameras set up to spend some time analyzing it. But one thing I am CERTAIN of is that if Stan says the aiming solution is xyz for all five shots then that's exactly what it is.
Ok, I am bowing out for a couple days. I have a lot to do to get this shop ready and Karen is gone so I am taking care of the kids as well. No time to play on this merry-go-round right now. I will be back with some video next week.
Did I not say that you would say something like that?
Did I not say that no one is saying that Stan, etc, can not pocket that shot.
I can make the shot with a number of different methods.
The issue is that it can not be made IF shot objectively based on the objective visual.
In other words, one can not get on the line needed to make that shot & still see the visual OBJECTIVELY or IF they do & still pocket the ball then the pivot was altered or the cue steered.
To pocket that shot with the ETA & thinning pivot one must leave the position where the CB is fixed by the combined CTE & ETA lines or alter the pivot or steer the cue.
When one moves off of that line one is then using their subjectivity in determining how much to move.
I know it is explained oppositely of that but science & common sense logic dictate otherwise.
The visual of CTE along with ETA fixes the position of the shooter where they can see both simultaneously.
That objectively fixed shooter position is the same for shot 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5.
With it, the objectively fixed shooter position, all five shots do not pocket nor even come close to doing so, but instead come out on the same angle, as they should, objectively.
Nothing has been shown or described that is objective that would make that change.
That is for what Dan & TonyTheTiger were asking.
PJ, Satorie, Anthony, & I have been asking for the same thing...
but we don't see an answer coming as we know that it does not exist & hence that is why it has never been presented.
Seeing the proper perception for the shot & seeing it through objective means are not the same thing.
Best Wishes.
Very few shots. VERY VERY VERY few.
If you knew CTE you would probably know them. Those aren't even holes, they are simply ball placements for which no CTE solution will naturally work.
I want to make this clear.
There is NO SHOT which can be played directly to a pocket which is not frozen or very close for which there is not a CTE solution.
Patrick Johnson published a diagram showing something like 25 angles around an object ball and claimed that CTE can't possibly cover all of them. In fact CTE covers every single one of them accurately and with ZERO fudging, gearing, adjusting etc...
It not an assumption at all.
It's a completely rational, logical, common sense, critically thought out, non science bending proper conclusion.
No Neil.
It's YOU that is misinterpreting & trying to convince others or me to agree with your misinterpretation for the purpose of your agenda.
You're confusing consistency of operation using subjectivity with objectivity & what is truly objective.
Or... you're using objectivity out of the context here where one might be able to learn how to not be biased.
That is like the ability that allows PJ, Anthony, Satorie, Dan, & myself to actually shoot the 5 shots...OBJECTIVELY with no bias or subjective input.
You may not be able to do that because you let the bias of wanting to pocket the ball influence you & you can not keep your subjectivity out.
In the visual sense something is either objective or it is not.
You seem to keep mixing the uses up for whatever 'argument' you want to present.
'move until you see the proper perception' is NOT an objective instruction nor direction. It might just as correctly be said, 'use your subjective interpretation until you decide on the proper line for the shot'.
When PJ, Satorie, Anthony, Dan & myself 'move until we see it, the CTE & ETA simultaneously, we get the same outcome angle for all 5 shots a we should, objectively.
Best Wishes to ALL.
Why make such an arrogant statement as what I bolded in red when you don't even know what the visuals are, or the steps to achieve them. You have never shot the shot following the steps of CTE. I know that, because you have proven over and over that you don't know what those steps even are. So, how can you make a statement like that when you have no idea if it is true or not?
Your statement about the 5 shots is nothing more than a total fabrication. You have stated many times on here that you have only learned a couple of things on here, and I believe you. The explanation of those 5 shots has been shown and proven over and over. Yet, you talk like it has never happened before.
As to your last line, you again show that you don't understand objectivity. Yet, that doesn't stop you from making up claims about the system.
As to you stating as fact that nothing has been shown that would make it objective, that is nothing more than a flat out lie. You have been told in this thread and in a number of other threads. Each time you either ignore the answers completely, or dismiss the answer as not objective despite being given the actual definition of objective which you also dismiss.
Why do you feel the need to continually try and deceive people about the nature and use of CTE? Is it because you never accomplished anything in pool, and now never will, and feel the need to be somebody in pool so you feel important trying to discredit others that have accomplished much? You have done the same thing with another subject that instructors teach, the pendulum stroke. Thousands and thousands of post with nothing more than the attempt to discredit what experts teach.
Wouldn't you look much better on here if you actually tried to help people, instead of just always trying to discredit someone else that has accomplished much?
Geezy pete, Rick. READ THE ARTICLE and LEARN something for a change. I know you like to brag that you never learn anything on here, but, come on. Time for a change!
John,
You seem to have misunderstood me.
I never said that anyone else said exactly what you were saying with your diagram etc.
But... many people have talked about using objective visuals as a means of initiating an alignment.
I never said I was great at 13.
I was explaining the process that I DID go through at 13 & X months when changing away from Ghost Ball.
You can spin it how you like but calling BS in a certain manner & context is just like calling someone a liar.
Best Wishes to ALL.
Same old Same old.
There are so many twists, distortions, & mischaracterizations, in there that it difficult to find anything that is completely true.
Same old same old.
Attack the individual instead of addressing the issue.
Just because a reply is made does not mean an answer has been given.
You like to play with words.
I'm not wasting my time correcting all of your misstatements.
I case you have not notice, your posts in Regarding to the Truth about so called 'Objective Aiming Systems' such as CTE have been...
insignificant.
Best Wishes to ALL.
I know they are insignificant to you, because no matter what proof you get, it has no meaning to you. Your mind is made up because you know it all. Nothing anyone says will ever change your mind.
Patrick Johnson:
It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.
To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.
pj
chgo
It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.
To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
The following is quote of Poolplay9's post#2108 on page#141 from the Poll thread on Aiming Systems vs Feel
All the math you will ever need is right there in my post you quoted. Hint: Start off by counting how many unique objective cut angles CTE Pro 1 produces. To ensure you aren't counting fake angles you can only manufacture with subjective feel adjustments, make sure you are able to give a full detailed description of all the CTE steps to achieve a cut angle before counting it. Detailed means no two people could possibly do it any differently if everybody were trying to follow your instructions. How many unique objective cut angles that you can fully explain all the steps to exactly reproduce it in detail (and where everyone else could exactly reproduce it) did you come up with?
All the math you will ever need is right there in my post you quoted. Hint: Start off by counting how many unique objective cut angles CTE Pro 1 produces. To ensure you aren't counting fake angles you can only manufacture with subjective feel adjustments, make sure you are able to give a full detailed description of all the CTE steps to achieve a cut angle before counting it. Detailed means no two people could possibly do it any differently if everybody were trying to follow your instructions. How many unique objective cut angles that you can fully explain all the steps to exactly reproduce it in detail (and where everyone else could exactly reproduce it) did you come up with?
Last edited:
The following is a post from another thread where CTE was the subject:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poolplaya9 View Post
You don't understand how CTE works, don't care how it works, and don't feel how it works is important. You have said that a number of times, John Barton who has said that dozens of times, and many of the other CTE arguers have said it as well. The problem is that on the one hand you all say you don't understand how CTE works, and then on the other hand you turn right around and argue in the most closed minded and adamant manner possible about every last detail of how it works and doesn't work. You all obviously do care a lot about the mechanism by which it works for you otherwise you wouldn't be so militant in your need to argue how it works even when you admit not knowing. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't understand it on the one hand, and then argue every last detail about it with someone on the other. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't care how it works, and then be absolutely and completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you might be subconsciously adjusting for an inaccurate system regardless of the evidence.
When it is convenient for the CTE arguers, you admit you don't understand how CTE works. When someone asks questions you don't have answers to, or wants more detail where descriptions of the steps are vague, or wants proof of anything like that it objectively finds the correct aim/shot line or of anything else, the response from your side is all too often "CTE can't be proven to work as claimed and I don't understand how it works and it isn't important how it works and I don't care, all I know is it works for me and that is all that is important". But when someone is showing mathematical proof on paper or through explanation that it does not find the correct shot line, and that CTE users are actually adjusting by feel to make their shots just like with any other system, you and the rest suddenly become experts who fully understand every last detail of the system and will argue vehemently against any possibility of subconscious adjustment.
So which is it? Do you fully understand it or not? Do you care how it works or not? Here is the answer and give this some serious internal soul searching before replying back with the knee jerk argument that every pore of your being will reflexively want to make. You all don't understand how it works, otherwise you would never say you didn't understand if you did. Plus you would be able to answer those tough questions if you did. Of course you don't understand how or why it works and have said so many,many times. You also do care how it works--a lot. A whole lot. Like a WHOLE LOT. But why is that? Because you will feel stupid if you actually have to accept to yourself that you were just subconsciously adjusting for everything the whole time. So your ego makes you have a closed mind about that and makes you need to have to argue against that vehemently, in the hopes that nobody believes you were subconsciously adjusting and will think to themselves "look how dumb those guys were", and so you don't have to accept it yourself and feel like "man how dumb was I to have just been using feel all along and adjusting and never even realizing it". But it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed about or ashamed about or to feel stupid about. We all do things subconsciously that we don't realize, and often, and it's just part of being human. But ego just won't let you guys look at the evidence and the facts without that bias.
The truth of the matter is that you and the rest of the CTE arguers/users don't understand the system, and it isn't important to you how it works as long as it isn't subconscious adjustments you are making that corrected for the system's inaccuracies. Ego is why you can never accept subconscious adjustment and is why you are so compelled to argue that which you admit to not understanding. It is misplaced ego though. Again, not consciously realizing something you are doing subconsciously doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you human, and there is no shame in being human. On the other hand, ignoring facts and evidence because of your ego displays a lack of ability to utilize critical thinking skills, and that level of willful bias is something that actually is shameful though IMO because that is something we have a lot more if not total control over.
This is simply a case of reflexively fighting against something simply because it isn't the way you would want it to be (because you are afraid it will make you look and feel silly) instead of just searching for the truth without bias and with an open mind whether you will hate the answer you arrive at or not. Seriously, do some real soul searching on this and ask yourself honestly why it is so important to you that it doesn't turn out to be subconscious adjustment. If it was really true when you guys all say "who cares how it works as long as it works" then it wouldn't matter to you if the reason was subconscious adjustment, but yet it does matter to you all a lot (it shouldn't, and so the question to ask yourself is why does it, and in that answer lies the cause of your biases).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poolplaya9 View Post
You don't understand how CTE works, don't care how it works, and don't feel how it works is important. You have said that a number of times, John Barton who has said that dozens of times, and many of the other CTE arguers have said it as well. The problem is that on the one hand you all say you don't understand how CTE works, and then on the other hand you turn right around and argue in the most closed minded and adamant manner possible about every last detail of how it works and doesn't work. You all obviously do care a lot about the mechanism by which it works for you otherwise you wouldn't be so militant in your need to argue how it works even when you admit not knowing. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't understand it on the one hand, and then argue every last detail about it with someone on the other. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't care how it works, and then be absolutely and completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you might be subconsciously adjusting for an inaccurate system regardless of the evidence.
When it is convenient for the CTE arguers, you admit you don't understand how CTE works. When someone asks questions you don't have answers to, or wants more detail where descriptions of the steps are vague, or wants proof of anything like that it objectively finds the correct aim/shot line or of anything else, the response from your side is all too often "CTE can't be proven to work as claimed and I don't understand how it works and it isn't important how it works and I don't care, all I know is it works for me and that is all that is important". But when someone is showing mathematical proof on paper or through explanation that it does not find the correct shot line, and that CTE users are actually adjusting by feel to make their shots just like with any other system, you and the rest suddenly become experts who fully understand every last detail of the system and will argue vehemently against any possibility of subconscious adjustment.
So which is it? Do you fully understand it or not? Do you care how it works or not? Here is the answer and give this some serious internal soul searching before replying back with the knee jerk argument that every pore of your being will reflexively want to make. You all don't understand how it works, otherwise you would never say you didn't understand if you did. Plus you would be able to answer those tough questions if you did. Of course you don't understand how or why it works and have said so many,many times. You also do care how it works--a lot. A whole lot. Like a WHOLE LOT. But why is that? Because you will feel stupid if you actually have to accept to yourself that you were just subconsciously adjusting for everything the whole time. So your ego makes you have a closed mind about that and makes you need to have to argue against that vehemently, in the hopes that nobody believes you were subconsciously adjusting and will think to themselves "look how dumb those guys were", and so you don't have to accept it yourself and feel like "man how dumb was I to have just been using feel all along and adjusting and never even realizing it". But it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed about or ashamed about or to feel stupid about. We all do things subconsciously that we don't realize, and often, and it's just part of being human. But ego just won't let you guys look at the evidence and the facts without that bias.
The truth of the matter is that you and the rest of the CTE arguers/users don't understand the system, and it isn't important to you how it works as long as it isn't subconscious adjustments you are making that corrected for the system's inaccuracies. Ego is why you can never accept subconscious adjustment and is why you are so compelled to argue that which you admit to not understanding. It is misplaced ego though. Again, not consciously realizing something you are doing subconsciously doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you human, and there is no shame in being human. On the other hand, ignoring facts and evidence because of your ego displays a lack of ability to utilize critical thinking skills, and that level of willful bias is something that actually is shameful though IMO because that is something we have a lot more if not total control over.
This is simply a case of reflexively fighting against something simply because it isn't the way you would want it to be (because you are afraid it will make you look and feel silly) instead of just searching for the truth without bias and with an open mind whether you will hate the answer you arrive at or not. Seriously, do some real soul searching on this and ask yourself honestly why it is so important to you that it doesn't turn out to be subconscious adjustment. If it was really true when you guys all say "who cares how it works as long as it works" then it wouldn't matter to you if the reason was subconscious adjustment, but yet it does matter to you all a lot (it shouldn't, and so the question to ask yourself is why does it, and in that answer lies the cause of your biases).
Last edited:
You quote that post like it is supposed to mean something. It doesn't. There will always be two people that do things differently. Some, because they simply can't follow directions. Others, for various reasons. That does NOT equate to the definitions not being objective. Stating that it does, shows a lack of understanding on what the term objective even means.
However, as to how many angles (description wasn't very detailed, so will just go with one angle per degree) CTE will produce, that's easy. Taking out angles 1-5 and 85-90 because no one is going to shoot those angles anyways, that leaves 80 different angles at one degree per angle, with the ob in the center of the table. And with the cb only being able to hit the ob on the half nearest the cb.
As to the detailed description of how to do it, check out Stan's DVD series.
- Status