I'm not a CTE user, but I think I can answer this. If not, I'm sure I'll get corrected. Apparently, when the CB is that far away from the OB, you have to make it work. Lol
Seriously though, I believe there's a slight change in the line to A. I sketched it out and it looks like you'd have to initially get the line from right of center CB (about a tip) to A on the OB. This line converges with the aim line (center cueball to center ghostball) about 5 inches behind the CB. So a manual pivot point (bridge hand) would have to be there. Or you can do that "sweep" thing and come right down into the aim line. Now let's hear it from the folks that have mastered CTE. I'd like to know if I'm close to getting it right, or if I should've stuck to reading instead of replying.
It doesn't work at long distances for the same reasons it doesn't work at short distances.
On every shot a player need to blend CB hit, speed, RPMs, and elevation. CTE, and it's variants, do not provide a solution for doing all that.
A player must become accustomed to setting up in a consistent, reliable manner, and using that platform to take all those variables into consideration and generate an accurate stroke that will deliver the CB to the desired position on the table. All the crazy DVDs, videos, and books in the world cannot provide enough mumbo gumbo to give you a path to performing well as would a consistent PSR, which makes aiming an afterthought.
Pool is science but it is also artistry.
Lou Figueroa
CTE is all about making you set up in a consistent PSR. In fact it simplifies the aiming process and allows you to play your best pool.
Your assumptions of CTE are absurd.
CTE users: I usually play on 9' tables and occasionally on a 10' table. For a shot that is, say 7 diamonds between CB and OB, how well does CTE work? I can barely see the center of the OB from that distance let alone try to align CTA and CTE.
CTE users: I usually play on 9' tables and occasionally on a 10' table. For a shot that is, say 7 diamonds between CB and OB, how well does CTE work? I can barely see the center of the OB from that distance let alone try to align CTA and CTE.
Mechanically it still works the same. Obviously longer shots may be more difficult to align, regardless of your aiming system. But I stick with the system and do just fine. Lou isn't wrong about all the other nuances of pool, but we already know this. It's an aiming forum, not a "how to play pool" forum.
DVD2 Chapter 15 will fix your issue.
I also was having the same issue until I revisited the chapter.
Hang in there.
John
I have had you on Ignore for probably close to, oh, three years. You know this.
But curiosity got the better of me and I looked at this post, and then your posting history. Just looking at the first page of your posting history -- about a third of your posts are shots at me, to which I have never responded.
Though something I rarely do, I must, regrettably, report this to the mods.
Lou Figueroa
you are back
on Ignore
I'm not a CTE user, but I think I can answer this. If not, I'm sure I'll get corrected. Apparently, when the CB is that far away from the OB, you have to make it work. Lol
Seriously though, I believe there's a slight change in the line to A. I sketched it out and it looks like you'd have to initially get the line from right of center CB (about a tip) to A on the OB. This line converges with the aim line (center cueball to center ghostball) about 5 inches behind the CB. So a manual pivot point (bridge hand) would have to be there. Or you can do that "sweep" thing and come right down into the aim line. Now let's hear it from the folks that have mastered CTE. I'd like to know if I'm close to getting it right, or if I should've stuck to reading instead of replying.
I have had you on Ignore for probably close to, oh, three years. You know this.
But curiosity got the better of me and I looked at this post, and then your posting history. Just looking at the first page of your posting history -- about a third of your posts are shots at me, to which I have never responded.
Though something I rarely do, I must, regrettably, report this to the mods.
Lou Figueroa
you are back
on Ignore
Sketching it out will almost always look wrong because it really isn't a 2 dimensional system, yet aiming with CTE as Stan instructs almost always looks right. Listening to absurd comments from people who have never even used the system is pointless. If they actually worked at it a bit they would see how foolish they sound. If they don't need to work at it, then they are wasting alot of time trying to keep others from benefiting from it. Did I mention how foolish they sound?
There are no mysterious visual effects occurring with CTE. Each eye captures 2-dimensional images, then the brain basically triangulates the two sets of data in order to develop an estimated depth perception. The CTE system is based on the convergence of lines, which can easily be shown on paper. Anything beyond the geography is purely subjective.
Back in the 1990's Hal Houle put CTE out in the open, but prior to that many players were already using a parallel shift or a pivot similar to Hal's CTE, like SAM or the "quarter system". Hal used 15-30-45 degree points on the OB, which is the A B and C in today's CTE. It involved lining up a line from the CB edge to one of these points, then PIVOTING to CB center, a method which can easily be illustrated/sketched. Stan has improved the method by incorporating it into your stance and shot approach, favoring a sweep instead of a pivot. Regardless, CTE is not a visual aiming phenomenon. Aiming is an art, and unless your method is instinct (rote), it can be shown on paper.
Arguing over the mechanics of CTE is similar to arguing over religious beliefs. Due to non-objective aspects, believers and non-believers rarely find common ground. But I say to each their own. If it works for you (religion or CTE) then go for it.
I was sincerely trying to offer a remedy for Sacman's question about longer shots. Using the original CTE system (before visual sweeps came into it), a player has to make it work. Because, from a distance, if you line CB edge to any point on the OB, A or B or C, then pivot to center CB, you'll be sending the CB on a path that doesn't contact the object ball. So there must be a trick to making it work, apparently on Stan's DVD2.
There are no mysterious visual effects occurring with CTE. Each eye captures 2-dimensional images, then the brain basically triangulates the two sets of data in order to develop an estimated depth perception. The CTE system is based on the convergence of lines, which can easily be shown on paper. Anything beyond the geography is purely subjective.
Back in the 1990's Hal Houle put CTE out in the open, but prior to that many players were already using a parallel shift or a pivot similar to Hal's CTE, like SAM or the "quarter system". Hal used 15-30-45 degree points on the OB, which is the A B and C in today's CTE. It involved lining up a line from the CB edge to one of these points, then PIVOTING to CB center, a method which can easily be illustrated/sketched. Stan has improved the method by incorporating it into your stance and shot approach, favoring a sweep instead of a pivot. Regardless, CTE is not a visual aiming phenomenon. Aiming is an art, and unless your method is instinct (rote), it can be shown on paper.
Arguing over the mechanics of CTE is similar to arguing over religious beliefs. Due to non-objective aspects, believers and non-believers rarely find common ground. But I say to each their own. If it works for you (religion or CTE) then go for it.
I was sincerely trying to offer a remedy for Sacman's question about longer shots. Using the original CTE system (before visual sweeps came into it), a player has to make it work. Because, from a distance, if you line CB edge to any point on the OB, A or B or C, then pivot to center CB, you'll be sending the CB on a path that doesn't contact the object ball. So there must be a trick to making it work, apparently on Stan's DVD2.
My only negative observation with CTE is this: A player with a good stroke may have lousy visualization skills, as far as determining cut angles. If that player expects CTE to be user-friendly, meaning a system that will allow him to use his good stroke and quickly begin pocketing balls, he or she will be very disappointed because the system does not provide immediate results. I have friends that have bought into this method, only to discover that it takes weeks to months before it starts clicking for them, if it ever does. It's because of the varying changes in the distance between CB and OB. That speaks volumes about the subjective nature of it. If it takes a lot of practice and repitition to get your brain locked on it, it's called rote, which is old-school learning.
Though I'm sure using CTE could provide a quicker learning curve for those that stick with it, a truly objective method for aiming would not require a player to spend hours upon hours trying to find consistent results. Now, if you have a good stroke and I say "aim here", while pointing to a spot on the OB or table or wherever, and you do it and get immediate results, that would be an objective aiming method.
When it comes to aiming, there are two ways to learn: Rote or System. Pick a system and work on it for an hour. If it doesn't provide positive results, pick another one. If that one doesn't provide results, then try another. If you can't seem to find one that shows immediate potential, pick one (the easiest to understand would be good idea) and stick with it until it becomes natural. Eventually you'll get it working because your brain will begin to compensate for all the little things that seemed unworkable when you started it. In the end, the whole process ends up being a branch right out of the old rote tree after all.
Sorry to go off topic, Sacman.
Cte privides a quicker learning curve...just the opposite.My only negative observation with CTE is this: A player with a good stroke may have lousy visualization skills, as far as determining cut angles. If that player expects CTE to be user-friendly, meaning a system that will allow him to use his good stroke and quickly begin pocketing balls, he or she will be very disappointed because the system does not provide immediate results. I have friends that have bought into this method, only to discover that it takes weeks to months before it starts clicking for them, if it ever does. It's because of the varying changes in the distance between CB and OB. That speaks volumes about the subjective nature of it. If it takes a lot of practice and repitition to get your brain locked on it, it's called rote, which is old-school learning.
Though I'm sure using CTE could provide a quicker learning curve for those that stick with it, a truly objective method for aiming would not require a player to spend hours upon hours trying to find consistent results. Now, if you have a good stroke and I say "aim here", while pointing to a spot on the OB or table or wherever, and you do it and get immediate results, that would be an objective aiming method.
When it comes to aiming, there are two ways to learn: Rote or System. Pick a system and work on it for an hour. If it doesn't provide positive results, pick another one. If that one doesn't provide results, then try another. If you can't seem to find one that shows immediate potential, pick one (the easiest to understand would be good idea) and stick with it until it becomes natural. Eventually you'll get it working because your brain will begin to compensate for all the little things that seemed unworkable when you started it. In the end, the whole process ends up being a branch right out of the old rote tree after all.
Sorry to go off topic, Sacman.