The only reason it seems like that is because the CTE "controversy" has crowded out every other topic here. I predict that with it gone we'd see much more constructive conversation about other methods.
pj
chgo
:thumbup2:
The only reason it seems like that is because the CTE "controversy" has crowded out every other topic here. I predict that with it gone we'd see much more constructive conversation about other methods.
pj
chgo
It is also worth pointing out that everyone's perceptions will be different.
Not only because they process the visuals differently but also because they're looking at the balls and table from different physical perspectives. IOWs you're not going to see what I see nor what someone else sees.
Lou Figueroa
I'd be on board with forum specifically for CTE. Then you can be constructive with other aiming methods, and stay out of the CTE forum. But, do you really think that would happen? I get the feeling you (and others) are here specifically to troll CTE threads. There wouldn't be a CTE "controversy" if it weren't for about 4 of 5 specific people.
Back up your theories with some evidence. You are making a blanket claim that basically states no one could possibly be successful with any aiming system because we all see differently. Yes we all have our own vision centers and we've all learned to aim balls different ways, but it is also possible to train a person to see perspectives in a specific way. It may be harder for some than others, depending on how they aim and how deeply rooted in what they do, and how willing they are to try a new perspective on aiming.
The only reason it seems like that is because the CTE "controversy" has crowded out every other topic here. I predict that with it gone we'd see much more constructive conversation about other methods.
pj
chgo
Well, since you asked.......https://www.simplypsychology.org/perceptual-set.html
You bias, prejudices, emotions are influencing your perception.
In other words......CTE only works because you want it too.
Let's stick with the familiar "3 similar shots" scenario - the same distance between CB & OB and the same "perception" for each shot, but at slightly different locations on the table, so slightly different cut angles.One. And every time you move the OB a different one.
Let's stick with the familiar "3 similar shots" scenario - the same distance between CB & OB and the same "perception" for each shot, but at slightly different locations on the table, so slightly different cut angles.
But since the balls don't change in relation to each other, let's move the pocket instead of the balls (presumably you agree that's equivalent).
Can the CTE line touch different spots on the OB now?
pj
chgo
Let's stick with the familiar "3 similar shots" scenario - the same distance between CB & OB and the same "perception" for each shot, but at slightly different locations on the table, so slightly different cut angles.
But since the balls don't change in relation to each other, let's move the pocket instead of the balls (presumably you agree that's equivalent).
Can the CTE line touch different spots on the OB now?
pj
chgo
Yes, I mean recreate the exact same three similar shots by moving the table & pocket rather than the balls - so it's crystal clear that nothing has changed with the balls themselves.If you mean rotate the table underneath the balls, sure.
It's the same table and the balls are in exactly the same positions for the three shots as they would be if we moved the balls instead. All the numerological hocus pocus still applies exactly as before.But (according to Stan) the pockets being at right angles on the corners of two adjacent squares is part of the perception equation.
None of that changes - read my reply to mohrt above.Can't do that. Pool is played on a rectangular 2X1 surface......or 2 perfect squares with 8 right angles (6 pockets).
Yes, I mean recreate the exact same three similar shots by moving the table & pocket rather than the balls - so it's crystal clear that nothing has changed with the balls themselves.
It's the same table and the balls are in exactly the same positions for the three shots as they would be if we moved the balls instead. All the numerological hocus pocus still applies exactly as before.
If I read Cookie right he believes there's now a different CTE line. I'm making sure we're talking about the same thing.
pj
chgo
None of that changes - read my reply to mohrt above.
pj
chgo
Back up your theories with some evidence. You are making a blanket claim that basically states no one could possibly be successful with any aiming system because we all see differently. Yes we all have our own vision centers and we've all learned to aim balls different ways, but it is also possible to train a person to see perspectives in a specific way. It may be harder for some than others, depending on how they aim and how deeply rooted in what they do, and how willing they are to try a new perspective on aiming.
It sounds like you're saying CTE doesn't really "work". I don't believe that - I'm sure it works for its users as well as all the other aiming methods work for their users.CTE only works because you want it too.
Spiderman....ROTFLMAO! What a crock of crap!
You can't STAY OUT of a CTE thread and haven't for 21 years! You either start them with some trolling bait or jump into each and every one.
NOTHING is holding you or anyone else back from starting a thread about ANY aiming system RIGHT NOW. PLEASE DO.
I/we PROMISE to stay out. Lets see how far it gets into depth. LMAO.
If you mean rotate the table underneath the balls, sure. But (according to Stan) the pockets being at right angles on the corners of two adjacent squares is part of the perception equation. I have no way to test this, I only have a 2x1 regulation shape pool table. I can however, verify it works on the playing surface 99.99% of us play on.
Monty,
Can YOU or Stan please provide in writing the "perception EQUATION"?
I am sure that BC21 can check it out for "validity".
Can't do that. Pool is played on a rectangular 2X1 surface......or 2 perfect squares with 8 right angles (6 pockets).
An experienced player will recognize the majority of shots at the moment of address, and the brain will immediately start breaking it down in terms of approx cut angle, tangent line, etc for a 2X1 surface......sort of like what Virtual Pool does for you with the lines. If you have a 1/2 ball hit on an OB that is 6" away from the corner pocket sitting straight out from the mouth of the pocket, and you line up with 1 tip low and 1 tip running english, your brain is mapping out the path of the CB knowing that you're gonna swing around 2 rails and land between the far side and corner pockets on the same side of the table (with medium speed hit) even though you're looking in the opposite direction . If you change your mind and shift the tip placement in any direction, your brain is mapping out the changes in real time as you do this, just like the VP software does.
For many players the eyes will also immediately dial in to what works best for the given shot. So like the Virtual Pool reference, if you started slowly moving the pocket to the left or right, the brain would immediately start processing the new data, including increasing or decreasing one eye over the other. So perhaps, yes, the CTE line probably could touch different spots on the OB if the pocket were moved......would you make the ball, who knows. CTE works great for 2X1 surfaces, though.
Yes, I mean recreate the exact same three similar shots by moving the table & pocket rather than the balls - so it's crystal clear that nothing has changed with the balls themselves.
It's the same table and the balls are in exactly the same positions for the three shots as they would be if we moved the balls instead. All the numerological hocus pocus still applies exactly as before.
If I read Cookie right he believes there's now a different CTE line. I'm making sure we're talking about the same thing.
pj
chgo