CTE Trumps CIT

[Neil]

I'm interested to know where it was stated exactly as "CTE takes care of throw for any shot." What I understand is "CTE has an overcut to compensate for CIT." I think its pretty clear if you take a specific shot, and the only variable you changes is speed, the throw (depending on the severity of cut) will vary. Also, you would likely not change the CTE perception on the given shot, meaning you are not going to change the cut angle. So something has to give, yes? Now when I hit a very typical, medium speed to firm hit, and my stroke is true, the ball tends to travel to center pocket. If I hit very softly, I'm going to compensate, from experience, with high or outside spin. If I hit very hard, I don't *think* I consciously change anything, and also my shot percentage goes down dramatically. That's why I don't slam balls into pockets. The game will almost never call for that, and my stroke isn't going to bode well, and my game would suffer from it. I think (and I'm fine to be corrected) that the CTE overcut is addressing the large majority of shots that fall in the medium/firm range. For shorter shots, its even less of an issue. For longer shots, you have to work from experience to know what to address for the given shot. Firing in table-length cut shots at warp speed is probably not going to win you very many trophies.

Very true. Although this has all been stated already, just not with a big X for those that don't want to read the map to see where they are going.

If Dan would actually read with the end goal being to learn instead of to see what he can nit pick next, he would already know this.

They have ears, but do not hear. Eyes, but do not see.

 

[BC21]

Great graph! So tell me again if you would. What is your best estimate of the angle in video 1 vs video 2 and what does your BD graph say about it?

In the first video the shots look to be right around 20° or a little more, considering a 3/4 aim misses by an inch or two. The CIT here would be between 3.5 and 5 degrees depending on how it's hit. That's a 1.5° margin, just enough to barely keep the shot within the margin of error for the pocket. Move the ob out a few more inches and the CIT margin exceeds the margin of error for the shot.

The second vid looks to be around 15° to 17° at the most. According to the graph, the CIT would be between 3 and 3.5 degrees, regardless of how it's hit. That means you can hit it anyway you want and the CIT will only change the angle by about half a degree (0.5° CIT margin). With a margin of error for the shot being around 1.5°, the CIT margin is not make a critical difference.

 

[BC21]

I try to shoot pool in a manner that minimizes the variables. That will in turn, maximize consistency. One variable is aim. CTE does an excellent job of minimizing that part of the shot equation. I'd say its about 1/3 of it. Then there is stroke. You have to deliver a straight stroke. This takes years to develop. I'd say that is another 1/3. The rest is the variables on a given shot. throw, speed, spin, playing conditions, what you're accomplishing with the shot etc. Over time I have learned subconsciously that the closer to a half ball hit, the more CIT is a concern, especially with a slower shot. So I hit the ball medium/firm to minimize the variable, if given the choice. If I have to hit soft, I'll impart some top english to minimize the variable. Or maybe outside spin, it really depends on what I'm trying to do with the cue ball. Pocket width gives wiggle room for this stuff. You as a player, must combine all this information together and execute the shot. No magic bullets, but systems are a great way to improve your game.

I like this post also.

 

[mohrt]

Looks like Stan put up another couple videos on CIT. I learned something!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW29LXIA-Jk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d6o6kmrxyI

"It gives you an overcut alignment to the center of the pocket so that you can utilize center ball more."

 

[BC21]

I'm interested to know where it was stated exactly as "CTE takes care of throw for any shot." What I understand is "CTE has an overcut to compensate for CIT." I think its pretty clear if you take a specific shot, and the only variable you changes is speed, the throw (depending on the severity of cut) will vary. Also, you would likely not change the CTE perception on the given shot, meaning you are not going to change the cut angle. So something has to give, yes? Now when I hit a very typical, medium speed to firm hit, and my stroke is true, the ball tends to travel to center pocket. If I hit very softly, I'm going to compensate, from experience, with high or outside spin. If I hit very hard, I don't *think* I consciously change anything, and also my shot percentage goes down dramatically. That's why I don't slam balls into pockets. The game will almost never call for that, and my stroke isn't going to bode well, and my game would suffer from it. I think (and I'm fine to be corrected) that the CTE overcut is addressing the large majority of shots that fall in the medium/firm range. For shorter shots, its even less of an issue. For longer shots, you have to work from experience to know what to address for the given shot. Firing in table-length cut shots at warp speed is probably not going to win you very many trophies.

I don't know if it's been worded exactly like that. What Stan says is that CTE provides a natural overcut, allowing you to hit balls hard, soft, whatever, and still pocket the ball. He also says it's a professional "center pocket" system. But these two statements describe two different realities. They both can't be true. One indicates the entire pocket is used (which Stan has called "slop" when talking about other systems), the other says that every shot is designed to overcut, yet somehow provide a center pocket shot, regardless of varying amounts of CIT that obviously result in pocketing the ball anywhere within the pocket opening.

Anyway, what you are saying is what I have been saying -- the player must know how to adjust/compensate for CIT and changing table conditions. Also that the overcut provided by the system is geared for shorter shots and certain shots that require a good stun or a good amount of throw to be sure the overcut doesn't cause a miss. It may be voodoo for some to hear, but that amounts to a need for individual feel/knowledge/experience.

I think that's the crux of the matter when it comes to the probing questions from Dan, Lou, myself, and others.....CTE is simply not what it is presented/promoted as being. If it works it works. Plenty of you guys can attest to the fact that it works for you. But to say it's easy and anybody can do it because it's so objective, just see and align and shoot....well, that's the part that doesn't seem quite true. It's like you're leaving out the numerous hours that it took you to develop the experience needed to consistently make it work.

 

[BC21]

Looks like Stan put up another couple videos on CIT. .........

"It gives you an overcut alignment to the center of the pocket so that you can utilize center ball more."

It's statements like this that make no sense. "An overcut to center pocket." What he means, and what he demonstrates, is that it gives you an overcut and throw MIGHT result in a center pocket shot. That makes sense, considering the fact that CIT is not a constant. It varies. Does the overcut vary by the exact amount of CIT needed for each shot in order to send the ob to center pocket?

 

[Vorpal Cue]

WOW, is THAT dishonest! I thought we were having a good conversation in that thread. Guess I'm going to have to watch my back around you, Vorpal!

Neil accused me of basically being someone one who is only here to bash Stan and never have any interest in actually learning how to make it really work. They all accuse me and Lou and Brian and English! of having some secret hate filled agenda against the big bad CTE enemy.

Neil accused me of saying "many times" that I never had an interest in LEARNING CTE. You provided a link that supposedly shows my callous attitude against CTE. Even when I read it I thought, "Huh, that doesn't sound like me, but I guess I did say that." Then I looked at it in context:

This is the full, unedited version of the quote. PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION to what you said first:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5757975&postcount=416

This was in a thread discussing ALL pivot systems and how they related to CTE. We were discussing mostly your system and EM's (forgot now what system that was). Anyway, the clear context is that you were suggesting different pivot systems I could try. In particular, you said, "Then you could see if that would get the visuals and rotation working for you. Got nothing to lose." My reply to you was basically that I did not have a problem that I was trying to solve by using a pivot system, since you know nothing about my game, I told you that. I thanked you and everything was cordial.

That is a FAR CRY from what you are trying to make it look like. It's like the Trump phone call to the gold star widow. Total BS reporting.

This is why bets like the one I proposed never actually happen. Somebody claims you uttered the exact words, ignoring the context completely. In fact, Neil said I never had interest in LEARNING CTE. What I actually said in that post is that I wasn't interested in changing up my game and "tinkering with," or USING a PIVOT SYSTEM (and not even necessarily Stan's version). I can be interested in a system and still not use it as my primary method.

The fact is that I would be pleased as punch if Stan's system worked the way he says. It would be a great thing for pool and I would buy the first 10 of his books. THAT is something I have said many times.

Your statement shows clearly you have no desire to learn a pivoting system. I assume you include CTE in that group. If not, the a-s-s in that assume isn't m-e but the other letter. If you can't own up to your own words, that says volumes about your intentions and character. You ask for proof, it's given and you start to whine it's taken out of context. Try a different excuse, I don't believe you.

You also implied that I did something unethical by pointing out a statement you asked for. What a hypocrite. You got what you asked for, too bad you don't like it. Go on and pretend I'm at fault for your terrible woes, it's funny. Maybe I'll get bored one day and search though your junk and find some more of your 'out of context' statements if one isn't enough for you. I'd rather clean a septic tank though.

Oh, and thank you for all your excellent advice on CTE. You sure know everything about it even though you keep asking the same dull questions about using it on the table. Let me explain CTE to you using Einstein's theory of relativity like another 'colorful' character did in the same thread I took the quote from. You can't get it because you know relatively nothing about pivoting and you're no Einstein trying to figure it out on your own.

 

[Neil]

It's statements like this that make no sense. "An overcut to center pocket." What he means, and what he demonstrates, is that it gives you an overcut and throw MIGHT result in a center pocket shot. That makes sense, considering the fact that CIT is not a constant. It varies. Does the overcut vary by the exact amount of CIT needed for each shot in order to send the ob to center pocket?

Try watching the video.

 

[BC21]

Try watching the video.

I watched all the videos. Did you?

The statements he makes in the videos contradict each other. They simply don't add up. In "CTE trumps CIT", he points out that speed is NOT a factor, that the CTE natural overcut trumps throw and it doesn't matter how you hit it. He demonstrates it and specifically says he used the same perception, same sweep, different speeds and NO adjustments.

Then in "CTE trumps CIT - Part 2", at 4:20 D) he sets up a shot close to the rail, where he knows (as Dan and I have pointed out) that the natural overcut will send the OB into the side rail instead of the pocket. So Stan says the system already has him in an over-cut alignment, so, "I'm going to augment my natural over-cut alignment with just a little bit of speed."

So he fattens the shot with speed here, but in the first video he specifically states that speed isn't a factor, that the same perception and same CCB alignment produces an accurate shot regardless of speed or hit.

 

[Neil]

I watched all the videos. Did you?

The statements he makes in the videos contradict each other. They simply don't add up. In "CTE trumps CIT", he points out that speed is NOT a factor, that the CTE natural overcut trumps throw and it doesn't matter how you hit it. He demonstrates it and specifically says he used the same perception, same sweep, different speeds and NO adjustments.

Then in "CTE trumps CIT - Part 2", at 4:20 D) he sets up a shot close to the rail, where he knows (as Dan and I have pointed out) that the natural overcut will send the OB into the side rail instead of the pocket. So Stan says the system already has him in an over-cut alignment, so, "I'm going to augment my natural over-cut alignment with just a little bit of speed."

So he fattens the shot with speed here, but in the first video he specifically states that speed isn't a factor, that the same perception and same CCB alignment produces an accurate shot regardless of speed or hit.

1. Ask yourself why you are so obsessed with nitpicking everything Stan says.

2. Listen to it again. You missed pertinent parts while looking for something to pick at.

3. Why not take it to the table and see for yourself? Oh, never mind, you don't know how to use it, so you can't do that.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I feel like every discussion of CTE always end up as a bunch of guys talking past eachother until one party or both become exhausted and annoyed, and then start slinging insults out of sheer frustration. If there is ever going to be any progress to the debate, the positions of both sides need to be clarified.

Really the problems sceptics have with CTE are the claims that are being made. There are others besides these, but these are the most relevant to the discussion:
1. "CTE takes you to a slight overcut"
2. "CTE is a center pocket system"
3. "CTE trumps throw"


I'm going to discuss all of these points. The first point must obviously be interpreted as an overcut ALIGNMENT, meaning that a ghostball placed on in the middle of the aiming line would have the extended line between its center and the object balls center point to the thin side of the pocket (or even outside it for some shots). That is entirely reasonable if claim 2 is to make any sense at all, otherwise you would undercut most shots or at least hit them on the thick side (with theoretical ghostball alignment without throw). Saying that you are aligned to an overcut is MEANINGLESS, unless you clearly specify the spin and speed you are referring to. Otherwise the usere is lost when trying to compensate for unusual spins or speeds. That wouldn't really be so bad, if CTE proponents simply stated that a person should start at the CTE alignment and then gradually learn adjustments. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING SAID.
Instead CTE users and salesmen state that CTE is a perfect center pocket system and that they make ZERO COMPENSATIONS.

Obviously one of the main problems with claim 2 is the fact that throw varies with speed, so a slight overcut would NOT pocket any speed of shot in the center pocket or indeed at all. This is compounded by spin effects (even if we consider vertical axes only). Refer to the chart. We see that the difference between various speeds of shots can be close to 4 degrees! That is not trivial! Even if the system put you in the exact center between the two extremes that would still yield a difference of 2 degrees, which will obviously not be good enough at any significant distance. I would suggest an ideal alignment favouring medium shots or even overcutting them slightly, as that would give you low variability in throw and also cover the most common shots the best. You still have a near 2 degree of difference over nearly the entire range of angles (past the minimal throw zone from 0-about 20 degrees,). The problem increases with the angle, which is bad, because shots get tougher the bigger the angle gets, and those shots may indeed be why people look up aiming system in the first place. Also, obviously the object balls distance to the pocket is a major factor. An even greater factor is closeness to the rail, which decreases the margin of error dramatically, especially at higher speeds. That was what I was trying to get to talking about Chinese 8 ball. Close to the rail, the margin of error is nearly non existent. A 2 degree aiming error, close to the rail on a Chinese 8 ball table, will hardly pocket a shot you could call a hanger on a regluar table, and then you are not factoring in the nap and variability in throw which can add to that error...That is of course also true on a tight snooker match table. So if Ronnie O'Sullivan and all the rest are using CTE covertly or unknowingly, they are certainly doing something more than the out of the box instructions!

There is also the "spike" in throw around the half ball hit, which has rather interesting implications. This must mean the alignment must be quite different on these hits than others. There has to be a rather jagged transition between a half ball hit alignment and "not quite half ball" or "slightly more than half ball". That is of course true for all aiming systems, not just CTE.

Claim 3 is obviously bs. I'm sorry but throw is a physical fact, unless you cheat with water or silicon spray, and that still only mitigates it. The final cuestick to object ball alignment that produces a center pocket hit is exactly the same for any aiming system. How you arrive there is not really a factor in relation to the physical reality of throw. So obviously, if one was to be reasonable, what is meant is that you don't consciously compensate for throw when you use CTE. That may be true, but that still means a compensation is being made. So, out of the box, CTE does not deliver a perfect algorithm for center pocketing (even if it was capable of doing that for one speed, which is an entirely different matter), unless speed is taken into account in a detailed way. Since this is not specifically adressed, what needs to happen is experienced based compensations, HAMB.

 

[mohrt]

It's statements like this that make no sense. "An overcut to center pocket." What he means, and what he demonstrates, is that it gives you an overcut and throw MIGHT result in a center pocket shot. That makes sense, considering the fact that CIT is not a constant. It varies. Does the overcut vary by the exact amount of CIT needed for each shot in order to send the ob to center pocket?

I think Stan explained, and demonstrated nonetheless, some very important things. First of all, when the term "center pocket" is used, this needs to be understood as "professionally acceptable center pocket", or an area within the middle of a pocket that is acceptable for pocketing balls. No one is a robot, there are always variables at play, and no professional is going to shoot perfect center pocket with a 0mm margin.

When it comes to the topic of CIT, I think Stan is saying its a variable that you largely do not have to think about on most shots. The overcut on a CTE shot (meaning, a very slight overcut to the natural angle) gives you the largest margin of error for the vast majority of shots. That means minimizing variables. Using CCB as a good starting point for any shot. CCB by itself is going to acceptable a high percentage of the time. Less to go wrong with a shot.

Stan explained in the video series that professionals do not slow roll balls into pockets, given the choice. If you do that, you might end up hitting the point of the pocket. So that verifies to me, the CTE overcut is not intended to be an automatic fix for every possible CIT situation. What Stan is saying is, you can apply some variance to a shot with high confidence, because you are starting with an alignment within a safe margin. In other words, you can add reasonable spin to a shot (which you will probably do often) without even thinking of CIT, because the overcut aligns you in such a way that you are still going to pocket that ball. CIT is a red herring, you don't have to think about it on most shots. Don't slow roll balls if you don't have to, apply some spin if thats required for the shot. What you almost never have to do is apply spin specifically because of CIT. The overcut gives you a good margin of error for the vast majority of shots.

So back to the original statement, its all about minimizing the variables. An overcut to the pocket gives more opportunity to use CCB as a starting point. You don't need to apply spin or whatnot for CIT, its a non-issue a vast majority of the time. The ball pockets with a CCB hit. If you need some spin, use it with your experience as a guide.

 

[mohrt]

I feel like every discussion of CTE always end up as a bunch of guys talking past eachother until one party or both become exhausted and annoyed, and then start slinging insults out of sheer frustration. If there is ever going to be any progress to the debate, the positions of both sides need to be clarified.

Really the problems sceptics have with CTE are the claims that are being made. There are others besides these, but these are the most relevant to the discussion:
1. "CTE takes you to a slight overcut"
2. "CTE is a center pocket system"
3. "CTE trumps throw"


I'm going to discuss all of these points. The first point must obviously be interpreted as an overcut ALIGNMENT, meaning that a ghostball placed on in the middle of the aiming line would have the extended line between its center and the object balls center point to the thin side of the pocket (or even outside it for some shots). That is entirely reasonable if claim 2 is to make any sense at all, otherwise you would undercut most shots or at least hit them on the thick side (with theoretical ghostball alignment without throw). Saying that you are aligned to an overcut is MEANINGLESS, unless you clearly specify the spin and speed you are referring to. Otherwise you are lost when trying to compensate for unusual spins or speeds.

Obviously one of the main problems with claim 2 is the fact that throw varies with speed, so a slight overcut would NOT pocket any speed of shot in the center pocket or indeed at all. This is compounded by spin effects (even if we consider vertical axes only). Refer to the chart. We see that the difference between various speeds of shots can be close to 4 degrees! That is not trivial! Even if the system put you in the exact center between the two extremes that would still yield a difference of 2 degrees, which will obviously not be good enough at any significant distance. I would suggest an ideal alignment favouring medium shots or even overcutting them slightly, as that would give you low variability in throw and also cover the most common shots the best. You still have a 1 degree or more of difference over nearly the entire range of angles (past the minimal throw zone from 0-about 20 degrees, and more than one for most of the range). The problem increases with the angle, which is bad, because shots get tougher the bigger the angle gets, and those shots may indeed be why people look up aiming system in the first place.

There is also the "spike" in throw around the half ball hit, which has rather interesting implications. This must mean the alignment must be quite different on these hits than others. There has to be a rather jagged transition between a half ball hit alignment and "not quite half ball" or "slightly more than half ball". That is of course true for all aiming systems, not just CTE.

Claim 3 is obviously bs. I'm sorry but throw is a physical fact, unless you cheat with water or silicon spray, and that still only mitigates it. The final cuestick to object ball alignment that produces a center pocket hit is exactly the same for any aiming system. How you arrive there is not really a factor in relation to the physical reality of throw. So obviously, if one was to be reasonable, what is meant is that you don't consciously compensate for throw when you use CTE. That may be true, but that still means a compensation is being made. So, out of the box, CTE does not deliver a perfect algorithm for center pocketing (even if it was capable of doing that for one speed, which is an entirely different matter), unless speed is taken into account in a detailed way. Since this is not specifically adressed, what needs to happen is experienced based compensations, HAMB.

You are going down the same rabbit hole Most all of these scientific nuances of pool can be squelched with a proper alignment and proper approach to shots in pool. In other words these issues/problems/concerns are largely a red herring. Shooting with CTE, with a vast majority of shots, will pocket balls with a simple CCB hit. If you need to add spin to a shot (which will happen often), again very often the ball will still pocket cleanly, no extra thought required. There are obviously situations or "edge cases" where more care will be required. I think that is a given.

You can prove this to yourself by shooting straight pool, using CTE and shooting just CCB, adding some spin here and there where the shot calls for it, and take note just how often you are needing to take that extra special care outside of these variables. I haven't tried to keep track, but I'm pretty sure I'm hitting CCB, adding a little spin here and there, but not much else is at play to pocket 99% of the balls. The 1% I may have to apply more spin than usual, or more/less force than usual, and experience is my guide.

 

[Dan White]

I feel like every discussion of CTE always end up as a bunch of guys talking past eachother until one party or both become exhausted and annoyed, and then start slinging insults out of sheer frustration. If there is ever going to be any progress to the debate, the positions of both sides need to be clarified.

Really the problems sceptics have with CTE are the claims that are being made. There are others besides these, but these are the most relevant to the discussion:
1. "CTE takes you to a slight overcut"
2. "CTE is a center pocket system"
3. "CTE trumps throw"

I have to disagree a bit on two points, First, the problem skeptics have with CTE is more like this:

1. Stan claims that CTE Pro1, his variation of CTE based on Hal's work, is a 100% objective aiming system.

2. Stan claims that he can achieve a rather wide range of shot angles from the exact same perception without changing anything and that it is the nature of a 2x1 surface with pockets at the right angles that makes this phenomenon, or "mystery" that "was not supposed to be" a reality.

Those are the real issues. More recently we have proven that CTE is not capable of achieving the things you have listed as 1,2,3.

Second point: The reality is that the debate on item 1 (and by inference item 2) is over. They just haven't realized it yet. It ended as soon as Stan posted the video below, which I assume you have seen.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546

 

[Straightpool_99]

You are going down the same rabbit hole Most all of these scientific nuances of pool can be squelched with a proper alignment and proper approach to shots in pool. In other words these issues/problems/concerns are largely a red herring. Shooting with CTE, with a vast majority of shots, will pocket balls with a simple CCB hit. If you need to add spin to a shot (which will happen often), again very often the ball will still pocket cleanly, no extra thought required. There are obviously situations or "edge cases" where more care will be required. I think that is a given.

You can prove this to yourself by shooting straight pool, using CTE and shooting just CCB, adding some spin here and there where the shot calls for it, and take note just how often you are needing to take that extra special care outside of these variables. I haven't tried to keep track, but I'm pretty sure I'm hitting CCB, adding a little spin here and there, but not much else is at play to pocket 99% of the balls. The 1% I may have to apply more spin than usual, or more/less force than usual, and experience is my guide.

I appreciate the pleasant tone. That being said, I have to say I disagree. I remember reading about you winning a large tournament or other? In that case you are indeed a skillfull, experienced player. Sadly, a lot of people buy aiming systems because they are neither. The awkward shots are often what separates a winner from an also-ran..

Personally I like to keep my speed around medium. It seems to make for a better pocketing percentage, and as you say, the need for compensations are not that frequent. Others I know use a touch of outside on most of their shots. I don't do that, because it tends to get inconsistent over large distances, but it is a way to get around the variability in throw and aim.

I believe you when you say you don't compensate all that often, but the physical fact of the matter is that you do, whenever you hit slow or hard, wether you yourself notice or not. I certainly understand what you mean by what you are saying, though.

In the end what we strive for is dead-stroke, where we don't think consciously about aiming at all and all that scientific talk is completely out of our minds. It's the other times which gives us problems.

 

[Dan White]

You are going down the same rabbit hole Most all of these scientific nuances of pool can be squelched with a proper alignment and proper approach to shots in pool. In other words these issues/problems/concerns are largely a red herring. Shooting with CTE, with a vast majority of shots, will pocket balls with a simple CCB hit. If you need to add spin to a shot (which will happen often), again very often the ball will still pocket cleanly, no extra thought required. There are obviously situations or "edge cases" where more care will be required. I think that is a given.

You can prove this to yourself by shooting straight pool, using CTE and shooting just CCB, adding some spin here and there where the shot calls for it, and take note just how often you are needing to take that extra special care outside of these variables. I haven't tried to keep track, but I'm pretty sure I'm hitting CCB, adding a little spin here and there, but not much else is at play to pocket 99% of the balls. The 1% I may have to apply more spin than usual, or more/less force than usual, and experience is my guide.

You are missing the point, mohrt. It isn't about using nuances to pocket balls with CTE. It's about Stan's advertising claims that CTE is 100% OBJECTIVE and that you can achieve multiple angles with one perception, which he refuses to explain "until the book comes out."

In the past, anytime any of Stan's supporters said something like what you just said about making adjustments, they would get b!tch slapped upside the head and told to get back out there turning tricks. I suspect that isn't happening now because we have video proof of Stan requiring slop in the pocket to make balls as close as 2.5 diamonds away.

Please address those concerns, not how you personally use CTE.

 

[mohrt]

So how is it that I consciously use the aim lines and CCB to consistently pocket balls? I don’t change anything. My eyes do the alignment, my body follows what my eyes tell me. If I had to adjust every shot differently it would never work and would have abandoned CTE a long time ago. You cannot dispute results.

 

[BC21]

I think Stan explained, and demonstrated nonetheless, some very important things. First of all, when the term "center pocket" is used, this needs to be understood as "professionally acceptable center pocket", or an area within the middle of a pocket that is acceptable for pocketing balls. No one is a robot, there are always variables at play, and no professional is going to shoot perfect center pocket with a 0mm margin.

When it comes to the topic of CIT, I think Stan is saying its a variable that you largely do not have to think about on most shots. The overcut on a CTE shot (meaning, a very slight overcut to the natural angle) gives you the largest margin of error for the vast majority of shots. That means minimizing variables. Using CCB as a good starting point for any shot. CCB by itself is going to acceptable a high percentage of the time. Less to go wrong with a shot.

Stan explained in the video series that professionals do not slow roll balls into pockets, given the choice. If you do that, you might end up hitting the point of the pocket. So that verifies to me, the CTE overcut is not intended to be an automatic fix for every possible CIT situation. What Stan is saying is, you can apply some variance to a shot with high confidence, because you are starting with an alignment within a safe margin. In other words, you can add reasonable spin to a shot (which you will probably do often) without even thinking of CIT, because the overcut aligns you in such a way that you are still going to pocket that ball. CIT is a red herring, you don't have to think about it on most shots. Don't slow roll balls if you don't have to, apply some spin if thats required for the shot. What you almost never have to do is apply spin specifically because of CIT. The overcut gives you a good margin of error for the vast majority of shots.

So back to the original statement, its all about minimizing the variables. An overcut to the pocket gives more opportunity to use CCB as a starting point. You don't need to apply spin or whatnot for CIT, its a non-issue a vast majority of the time. The ball pockets with a CCB hit. If you need some spin, use it with your experience as a guide.

All of this makes sense. But Stan has been very adamant about objectivity and the fact that a player's experienced judgement is not needed with CTE -- just see and shoot. Now he is back-pedaling a little bit to explain what many have been questioning all along.

And as Straightpool_99 and others have pointed out, naturally over-cutting balls is the standard practice, nothing special. It is convenient though if the system provides an automatic overcut. That's a good thing. But CIT is not a constant. It varies depending on speed, hit, and cut angle.

So, as Stan shows in one of these new vids, when using the exact same perception and sweep for the exact same cut angle (but in two different locations on the table) a player will need to "augment" the shot depending on speed. Yet in another new vid he flatly states that a player doesn't have to adjust or change a thing due to speed. It's statements like this that are very questionable, unless you think like Neil and simply ignore the meaning of words. For anyone that isn't already in the cult, conflicting and non-logical statements are purely ambiguous. And when the obvious questions come in response to such statements or shaky claims, those asking the questions are labeled as close-minded haters.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I have to disagree a bit on two points, First, the problem skeptics have with CTE is more like this:

1. Stan claims that CTE Pro1, his variation of CTE based on Hal's work, is a 100% objective aiming system.

2. Stan claims that he can achieve a rather wide range of shot angles from the exact same perception without changing anything and that it is the nature of a 2x1 surface with pockets at the right angles that makes this phenomenon, or "mystery" that "was not supposed to be" a reality.

Those are the real issues. More recently we have proven that CTE is not capable of achieving the things you have listed as 1,2,3.

Second point: The reality is that the debate on item 1 (and by inference item 2) is over. They just haven't realized it yet. It ended as soon as Stan posted the video below, which I assume you have seen.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546

Well, the objective nature of the system would have to take into account the factors I discussed. Those are the physical facts underlying all of pool.

Personally, I don't really understand the mechanism behind CTE, but I'm comforted by the fact that neither do most people. Stan claims to be one of only 3 people who do and to be able to explain it in his book. Which means he is either a super genius, way ahead of his time, or simply mistaken. I'll just have to wait for that to come out I guess, because so far the explanations given have been illogical and physically impossible in my understanding of physics and physiology, which admittedly is rather limited (low university level). I'm certainly no Dr. Dave! There seems to be inconsistencies in wether the rails are needed or not, and specifically how the position of the rails influences the perception of the visuals etc...Like I said, I'll have to wait for the book.

I did watch the video and saw nothing surprising, it is perfectly in line with my previous post. Nor do I consider it a proof of anything. The sample size is too small and the angles selected are sub-optimal. IF the shots were representative of how Stan shoots his shots (and that's a big IF) it seems that on these angles the system is calibrated for slow shots to go to center pocket. So at greater distances, slow shots will be more reliable, given a true rolling table. Personally I think if I could make my own system, I'd calibrate it for medium shots to go center pocket, for the reasons outlined in my previous post and that seems to be how Mohrt is shooting, based on his post.

 

[mohrt]

“Requiring slop” is a petty way to describe a professionally accepted margin of error. CTE minimizes variables. That’s largely what high level play in pool is about.