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

[ENGLISH!]

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.

Yes, I've stated that I have made my determination regarding whether or not it is an objective aiming system & that determination is that it is not an objective aiming system.

All I need is a reasonable, rational, logical, critically thought out, non science bending explanation as to the why & how that it is an objective aiming system to change my mind. However, I realize that that is all but impossible, but one should never say never.

You nor anyone else has given anything close to that type of explanation.

John Barton has & is trying but is falling rather short although making some points for it as a good method even though it is not an objective aiming system.

PJ & I have said that it has value even if it is a subjective method just like all other methods are subjective.

So... like in so many of your posts this one too is full of incorrect & inaccurate statements.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

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.

I guess in your 'smart-alec' manner you think that that complies with what it takes & what Poolplaya9 was talking about.

That's telling about you, Very telling.

I think the general unbiased readers can read a bit better than you & also comprehend what they read a bit better than you & then make their own determinations.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[Neil]

I guess in your 'smart-alec' manner you think that that complies with what it takes & what Poolplaya9 was talking about.

That's telling about you, Very telling.

I think the general unbiased readers can read a bit better than you & also comprehend what they read a bit better than you & then make their own determinations.

Best Wishes to ALL.

So again, because you can't refute my comment because it is the truth, you resort to calling me names.

 

[JB Cases]

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).

Why do people mention me and not quote my answer.

On the subject of not knowing how it works and not caring how it works:

I don't care how it works because it's effective on a practical level. Doesn't matter to me, just like I don't need to know how a computer works in order to use one.

I do care how it works on an intellectual level. I don't know how it works because that math is above my understanding.

I also know that there are times when I have no freaking clue what the shot line is and I use CTE to line up and take the shot and the object ball splits the pocket. So, TO ME, that indicates that the system is very objective.

OR,

OR,

OR,

Something about it triggers my subconscious into making the perfect "adjustment" into the right shot line over and over and over and over again. Y'all won't accept the premise that it's an objective system yet you want to believe that it's apparently magical enough to force the brain to adopt the perfect shot line every time.

 

[JB Cases]

I can't sleep and thought of a situation that illustrates how a CTE user gets to the shot line - sort of.

On Thursday in league my opponent was on the 8 ball but only had a scratch shot or some kind of a bank. So he calls a timeout and his teammate comes over and uses a diamond system to figure out the aim for a 3 railer. He tells the guy where to aim and how to hit it. The shooter nails it, high fives all around.

But the shooter had no clue if he was right or wrong. He followed the instructions and since his teammate put him on the right line and he could hit the ball straight it went in three rails.

That's how CTE users are for a lot of shots until they have practiced enough to trust that the line is right.

Many times we follow the instructions - OBJECTIVELY - and take the line we land on with no conscious thought of adjusting in any way from that line. We then focus on the execution just as my opponent did for his three-railer.

I don't think anyone would argue that banking and kicking systems aren't MOSTLY objective when it comes to the aiming. The subjective part I guess would be to know how a table is playing, long, short, slow, fast, etc and adjust for that if needed.

CTE is successfully used for banking. So would one really say that a CTE user who can consistently pocket multi-rail banks like a diamond system can as well is not using an objective system. I mean very consistent results have to point to a higher degree of objectivity in my opinion.

If this was Algebra then both side of the equation have to balance. Going backwards from the pocketed ball through the approach to the table one could simply observe CTE users vs. feel players and see the systematic approach vs. a guessing approach and I feel that the results for the CTE group over a wide range of shots would show a significantly higher success rate.

And that's just for pocketing.

If we were to include near misses to account for execution errors, say if the ball rattles of hits within an inch of the pocket then the success rate would be even higher for the system aimers.

One would expect this result to be true for proficient diamond system users when it comes to banking balls because the diamond systems are mathematically correct on paper. This is accepted that system users do better than feel players.

So when a CTE user has comparable or even higher successful scores over diamond system users then why can't we conclude that CTE aiming must be mostly objective.

 

[JB Cases]

CTE advocates.

Please try to debate with zero name calling. Think about it. Give them nothing to grab onto that deflects from the topic and eventually they run out of things to say that haven't been refuted.

We know who hasn't bothered to go to the table.

On table results bear out what we know to be true. So stick with that and don't get personal. Trust me on this as one who has more experience getting "personal" than any of you. Stick to the topic and be clinical about it and the weight of experience will be apparent to any readers still on the fence who are hanging out here.

 

[JB Cases]

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?

CTE doesn't PRODUCE cut angles. It solves for them.

 

[JB Cases]

By the way, detailed instructions are given for lots of things and despite them people end up with different results. Our brains and biases have a way of skipping steps without even realizing it. And sometimes we deliberately skip steps thinking we are smarter than the people who wrote the instructions.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

CTE advocates.

Please try to debate with zero name calling. Think about it. Give them nothing to grab onto that deflects from the topic and eventually they run out of things to say that haven't been refuted.

We know who hasn't bothered to go to the table.

On table results bear out what we know to be true. So stick with that and don't get personal. Trust me on this as one who has more experience getting "personal" than any of you. Stick to the topic and be clinical about it and the weight of experience will be apparent to any readers still on the fence who are hanging out here.

I think a better idea for CTE advocates is to not make any posts AT ALL in a thread that ENGLISH starts. Let him talk to himself and other anti-CTE posters since they're each in the same group of keyboard cowboys who have never grasped the concept or spent any time on table working on it. I don't think many want to be associated with him to begin with. ENGLISH has enough imaginary personalities roaming around in his brain to keep him occupied for the rest of his life.

And the best part is he CAN'T POST in a thread started by anyone else regarding CTE or he'll get BANNED!

They will NEVER run out of things to say, NEVER. Pat Johnson and Lou Figueroa have proven it to be the case going on 19 straight years, much of which is recycled garbage that's been posted thousands of times exactly the same way or with some minor mutations here and there.

The fact that so many intelligent individuals who are CTE advocates got sucked into his BLACK HOLE of doom thread, including myself, makes me think we aren't so bright after all.

I won't be posting in this thread or ANY that he starts ever again. SCREW HIM and the LUNACY produced as a result of, well, LUNACY.

The best thing that could happen is for Mr. Wilson or Mike to ban him for no other reason than to Save Him from Himself as a humanitarian gesture to be able to get on with a normal life with his wife.

 

[justadub]

Train wreck


That's what draws people into these threads....you can't "not look" at a train wreck.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Y'all won't accept the premise that it's an objective system yet you want to believe that it's apparently magical enough to force the brain to adopt the perfect shot line every time.

So a pure feel aimer who makes lots of shots proves that feel is an objective system?

lol

You don't need to convince us that you don't know what the word means.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

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.

Again, totally false post by someone who doesn't know or have experience with CTE.
Common sense and decency say that someone should be well versed in argument before making false accusations.

 

[cookie man]

I think a better idea for CTE advocates is to not make any posts AT ALL in a thread that ENGLISH starts. Let him talk to himself and other anti-CTE posters since they're each in the same group of keyboard cowboys who have never grasped the concept or spent any time on table working on it. I don't think many want to be associated with him to begin with. ENGLISH has enough imaginary personalities roaming around in his brain to keep him occupied for the rest of his life.

And the best part is he CAN'T POST in a thread started by anyone else regarding CTE or he'll get BANNED!

They will NEVER run out of things to say, NEVER. Pat Johnson and Lou Figueroa have proven it to be the case going on 19 straight years, much of which is recycled garbage that's been posted thousands of times exactly the same way or with some minor mutations here and there.

The fact that so many intelligent individuals who are CTE advocates got sucked into his BLACK HOLE of doom thread, including myself, makes me think we aren't so bright after all.

I won't be posting in this thread or ANY that he starts ever again. SCREW HIM and the LUNACY produced as a result of, well, LUNACY.

The best thing that could happen is for Mr. Wilson or Mike to ban him for no other reason than to Save Him from Himself as a humanitarian gesture to be able to get on with a normal life with his wife.

Yea this is probably the best post of the thread. Trying to explain things to know it all's that really know nothing is kinda stupid.

This has become noticeably apparent and true:
Never argue with an idiot (op), he will just bring you down to his level than beat you with experience.

 

[ENGLISH!]

So again, because you can't refute my comment because it is the truth, you resort to calling me names.

You don't even know the difference between calling someone a name & actually only criticizing a manner.

That's that twisting & distorting again to put a false slant on matters.

Because of that ongoing practice on your part, why should anyone take anything you say seriously or believe anything that you say? As I've said, you play fast & loose with the truth when you do all of your twisting & distorting, etc.

You've shown too many times to count, that there is a lot that you do not know regarding the truth when using the english language.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Why do people mention me and not quote my answer.

On the subject of not knowing how it works and not caring how it works:

I don't care how it works because it's effective on a practical level. Doesn't matter to me, just like I don't need to know how a computer works in order to use one.

I do care how it works on an intellectual level. I don't know how it works because that math is above my understanding.

I also know that there are times when I have no freaking clue what the shot line is and I use CTE to line up and take the shot and the object ball splits the pocket. So, TO ME, that indicates that the system is very objective.

OR,

OR,

OR,

Something about it triggers my subconscious into making the perfect "adjustment" into the right shot line over and over and over and over again. Y'all won't accept the premise that it's an objective system yet you want to believe that it's apparently magical enough to force the brain to adopt the perfect shot line every time.

John,

As I've said in another post, You've been making the best effort here as of late & have brought out some good points.

That said, you have a propensity to make extremely definitive statements that are simply not true like the one that I put in blue.

That says that one NEVER misses when using CTE.

Were you NOT using CTE when you played Lou?

You also use premises that are basically inapplicable to the issue & then make a conclusion as though it is applicable to the issue.

I understand why you do such things. I just thought they should be pointed out for more general recognition.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Why do people mention me and not quote my answer.

On the subject of not knowing how it works and not caring how it works:

I don't care how it works because it's effective on a practical level. Doesn't matter to me, just like I don't need to know how a computer works in order to use one.

I do care how it works on an intellectual level. I don't know how it works because that math is above my understanding.

I also know that there are times when I have no freaking clue what the shot line is and I use CTE to line up and take the shot and the object ball splits the pocket. So, TO ME, that indicates that the system is very objective.

OR,

OR,

OR,

Something about it triggers my subconscious into making the perfect "adjustment" into the right shot line over and over and over and over again. Y'all won't accept the premise that it's an objective system yet you want to believe that it's apparently magical enough to force the brain to adopt the perfect shot line every time.

John,

I don't see any question to you when Poolplaya9 made reference to your previous statements.

So... how was he supposed to quote any 'answer' that you did not make when there was no question to you.

I understand wanting to make your thoughts clear but the approached used was misleading.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[HawaiianEye]

That says that one NEVER misses when using CTE.

Where you NOT using CTE when you played Lou?

Seeing the shot and making the shot are two different things, no matter what system you use.

 

[JB Cases]

So a pure feel aimer who makes lots of shots proves that feel is an objective system?

lol

You don't need to convince us that you don't know what the word means.

pj
chgo

If there were a shotmaking test and a pure feel aimer who is a similar level of overall player performs better on the test consistently then it would certainly create discussion whether feel is indeed better.

But so far it seems as most of the high scores on these tests belong to system aimers.

I think Pat that YOU don't know what it means in the context of this discussion.

Do you think you will beat Gerry Williams or Stan Shuffett in a shotmaking contest? You're a decent player and you use some kind of feel/ghostball/fidgety method to hunt for a shot line.

I tell you what I would sponsor. I know you won't do it but I'd sponsor it anyway.....a shot making contest where you twice as many tries as a CTE aimer.

You're a scientifically minded guy and a decent player so you ought to have adopted whatever method of aiming you think works best for you by now. Thus in any given contest you should be able to perform to your highest level given that you are so self-aware and that your subconscious is trained to a high level.

Stan has a sufficiently straight stroke. Gerry has a sufficiently straight stroke.

I'd put either of them up against you in a shotmaking contest. Not a bet. I will donate $500 to the charity of your choice if you beat them. You pick 30 shots and Team CTE will pick 30 shots.

Neither side reveals the shots to the other side and you both go through the contest on live stream at the same time. Thus we can all watch it go down in real time.

We would need to agree on a grid that both sides use for accurate ball placement.

Both players have to try each shot until it's made. To win the CTE player has to make all the shots with an average number of tries that is 50% or better than yours.

If you want to create a larger sample size we can do it simultaneously with several CTE users and several self-proclaimed feel shooters.

I will donate $500 for each "feel" player's charity of choice that wins. If CTE users win then I will donate $500 to the Billiard Education Fund.

Would you like to participate in this experiment?

Yes, I know, video doesn't prove what method a person is using so I will just go off a basic premise that no one participating is lying about how they aim. This experiment is only to test whether or not CTE users can perform significantly better, about the same, or worse than feel players of about the same general skill level.

English you are barred because you use CJ's methods which are systematic (and mostly objective) ;-)

At the end of the day Pat without data we are just going in circles. In all big time sports there is some data to back up performance claims. For example it is known that on average those with more hours of dedicated practice perform better than those with less hours because the research found this to be the case.

So IF the only difference between two players is how they aim shouldn't we be able to get some meaningful data out of such structured performance experiments?

IF the CTE users do indeed perform better then perhaps you could conclude that using CTE make them better guessers.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

As I read these posts I feel I need to remind ALL of you that this will be a civil discussion.

From this point forward, it will result in at least temporary bans if you feel the need to add descriptives such as wacky, crazy, stupid, arrogant, ignorant etc.

The items that are added simply for defamatory effect will draw my attention.

English is in this thread and you are posting to it voluntarily. He's not stepping on your thread and for what I'm observing, has been polite.

Stop while you can.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB Cases:
Stan has a sufficiently straight stroke. Gerry has a sufficiently straight stroke.

I'd put either of them up against you in a shotmaking contest.

I'd put either of them up against you. I guess that would prove CTE is better (and worse) than itself?

lol

How am I supposed to avoid insulting your so-called intelligence when you constantly post brainless nonsense like this?

pj
chgo