I mentioned its name above. It's called the "inch and an eighth" system. It is simply visualizing where the base of the ghost ball sits and driving the cue ball over that point. Cranfield's Arrow is a simple aiming aid to help learn the idea.
Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
This is the first relevant CTE info I've come across. Is it on special?
Since eye placement is critical, I'll assume for now the actual shot delivery is biased either physically by head position or psychologically by confirmation bias or both.
Back as soon as I have any pertinent ideas about this...
There's is a fair degree of infomercial that you may be filtering out in the interest of student neutrality. The quoted post above omits all the bullshit. It seems to be a detailing of the Perfect Aim method. Knock yourself out.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I've took some Perfect Aim lessons, and while it has to deal with eye alignment and how you see, there wasn't any pivots, edges of balls, etc. Maybe there is a similar base/idea of vision but Perfect Aim didn't leave my head smoking by trying to understand what I was hearing. The post you quoted at least gives me something to try out at the table. I'm honestly not knocking or doubting the system, but I'm having a hell of a time parsing what the video is presenting, as such, I assume the video is for people in the know about the system already. Please realize I'm not trying to compare systems, just trying to relate to something I understand.
For example, "ticks." WTF is a tick? After 3 videos and smoke coming out of my ears, I'm assuming it's 1 degree out of a 360 degree object. I THINK that's what Stan is talking about, but if it were ever actually said I must have tuned it out. If CTE has the secret to hitting 1 degree on an object, then hot damn, that's a hell of a calibrated eyeball and would be useful to have. That said, thinking of the sphere as 360 or 180 ticks is giving me analysis paralysis. What do I do with the info and how is it put into useful practice? Does the book parse this in a way it could "click" for me? I legit have ADD, so I'm not faulting the info if it's presented in a way that requires multiple watches to understand. Sometimes info is hard to present and it requires the student to really do some study until it "clicks" for them. I'm hoping the book is presented in a way that lets you pick it apart in depth, because that's kind of how my brain works. I can get into super nit picky detail in reading, but sometimes I just zone out with the spoken word. With some dense (tightly packed) info I can almost feel the neurons forming in my head
, but once the info is there, I can see the connections.The 90 degrees in a corner... I'm not a math idiot, I do metrology work daily and have a good understanding of trigonometry and 3d geometry, Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T), but in the table geometry, how the hell does 15, 30, 45 relate to the 90 degrees in a seemingly arbitrary corner away from where the balls are, or 180 in the side? Again, not doubting, but it wasn't explained what the hell it meant in the video. If it's a supplement to the book and meant to not divulge the secret without a book purchase, I can accept that. If I wrote a book on a subject I was an expert at, I would want to sell some copies after all. Does the book accurately describe this 90 degree relationship to the various other corners on the table?
Being "fluent" in GD&T, I can understand the glazed look in people's eyes (even engineers) when I try to explain why the symbols on the print are incorrect, a better way to functionally dimension the part, how different callouts control different aspects and relate to a functional datum structure. I get it, unless somebody uses this stuff every day, it's hard to even converse with them about what the issues on a blueprint even are. Maybe I'm just seeing someone who is fluent in CTE talking like it's normal conversation and it's flying over my head like "egghead talk" or something. If I went into fourth year physics class and listened to them give a dissertation, I would be confused as hell without taking physics 101 first.
I guess I'd like a relatively unbiased opinion from someone who has looked at the book, is the info there and able to be "picked" apart until it makes a coherent thread? I'm not asking to be spoon fed the info or have it dumbed down, just asking, is the info there presented so it's actually able to be parsed by someone willing to study it?
@ Boogie,
Confusing Terminolgy Education will never be part of the VP shot tracker algorithm. (actually they'd throw it in if it caught on lol)
I'd learn the offsets provided by Speeder man first. You can easily express the dimensions in terms you understand.
Confusing Terminolgy Education will never be part of the VP shot tracker algorithm. (actually they'd throw it in if it caught on lol)
I'd learn the offsets provided by Speeder man first. You can easily express the dimensions in terms you understand.
Last edited:
Not exactly.
Quoting from the interweb:
If you open page 418 of Einstein: His Life and Times (1972) by Ronald W. Clark, it says that Louis de Broglie did attribute a similar statement to Einstein:
So why don’t you explain CTE to us barmaids, lol.
Lou Figueroa
Look up my posts on AZ about 10 years ago. I sounded a lot like you. The answer to all your questions is that "there's no there there." If you keep pushing for an answer you will be labeled a hater.I've took some Perfect Aim lessons, and while it has to deal with eye alignment and how you see, there wasn't any pivots, edges of balls, etc. Maybe there is a similar base/idea of vision but Perfect Aim didn't leave my head smoking by trying to understand what I was hearing. The post you quoted at least gives me something to try out at the table. I'm honestly not knocking or doubting the system, but I'm having a hell of a time parsing what the video is presenting, as such, I assume the video is for people in the know about the system already. Please realize I'm not trying to compare systems, just trying to relate to something I understand.
For example, "ticks." WTF is a tick? After 3 videos and smoke coming out of my ears, I'm assuming it's 1 degree out of a 360 degree object. I THINK that's what Stan is talking about, but if it were ever actually said I must have tuned it out. If CTE has the secret to hitting 1 degree on an object, then hot damn, that's a hell of a calibrated eyeball and would be useful to have. That said, thinking of the sphere as 360 or 180 ticks is giving me analysis paralysis. What do I do with the info and how is it put into useful practice? Does the book parse this in a way it could "click" for me? I legit have ADD, so I'm not faulting the info if it's presented in a way that requires multiple watches to understand. Sometimes info is hard to present and it requires the student to really do some study until it "clicks" for them. I'm hoping the book is presented in a way that lets you pick it apart in depth, because that's kind of how my brain works. I can get into super nit picky detail in reading, but sometimes I just zone out with the spoken word. With some dense (tightly packed) info I can almost feel the neurons forming in my head
The 90 degrees in a corner... I'm not a math idiot, I do metrology work daily and have a good understanding of trigonometry and 3d geometry, Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T), but in the table geometry, how the hell does 15, 30, 45 relate to the 90 degrees in a seemingly arbitrary corner away from where the balls are, or 180 in the side? Again, not doubting, but it wasn't explained what the hell it meant in the video. If it's a supplement to the book and meant to not divulge the secret without a book purchase, I can accept that. If I wrote a book on a subject I was an expert at, I would want to sell some copies after all. Does the book accurately describe this 90 degree relationship to the various other corners on the table?
Being "fluent" in GD&T, I can understand the glazed look in people's eyes (even engineers) when I try to explain why the symbols on the print are incorrect, a better way to functionally dimension the part, how different callouts control different aspects and relate to a functional datum structure. I get it, unless somebody uses this stuff every day, it's hard to even converse with them about what the issues on a blueprint even are. Maybe I'm just seeing someone who is fluent in CTE talking like it's normal conversation and it's flying over my head like "egghead talk" or something. If I went into fourth year physics class and listened to them give a dissertation, I would be confused as hell without taking physics 101 first.
I guess I'd like a relatively unbiased opinion from someone who has looked at the book, is the info there and able to be "picked" apart until it makes a coherent thread? I'm not asking to be spoon fed the info or have it dumbed down, just asking, is the info there presented so it's actually able to be parsed by someone willing to study it?
lol! There was a recent "pocket" article showing the Feynman method for learning a subject. He said you should try to teach whatever it is to a 6th grader. If you get stuck, go back and improve your understanding of that part of the subject, and then go back to further your 6th grader explanation. It seems to me a lot of people said things like this over the years.
The other one we see here often is about P.T. Barnum saying, "There's a sucker born every minute," which apparently he did not actually say.
Is the book free for those who bought the DVD's and are still confused about CTE?
I think the full quote is "There's a sucker born every minute who'll believe I said this."
pj
chgo
There used to be a ghost ball template with soft black plastic attachment that stood right in the center of the GB.
It was an incredible tool. I was shocked to see the gb was almost always on the thick side from my perception.
At one time I was trying to design one where a golf tee was hanging above the center of GB.
I think there was a product with a laser that stood above the table and put a laser spot on the cloth at the "inch-and-an-eighth". A golf tee would probably last longer. You could probably mount the golf tee flexibly so the tip was at the center of the ghost ball vertically as well as it wouldn't interfere that much with the cue ball.
Thread Title: 23 Years Are The Same Every Day On Pool Forums With CTE
**********************************************************************************************************************************
If you, as a pool enthusiast and player are interested in improving your game by becoming proficient with CTE (Center To Edge) Aiming, it won't be here.
23 years ago Hal Houle threw out a claim and teaser on an early internet group called Rec.Sport.Billiards (RSB) describing how only 3 lines were required to make nearly all cut shots on a 2:1 pool table with angles from 0 to about 90 degrees. The following was passed on to me by someone who was there in the loop and a close friend of Hal.
It didn't take many minutes at all for it to be posted that Mr. Patrick Johnson, with all of his infinite wisdom of 5 years steady experience since getting involved in pool, to come crashing down with one of the most scathing, uninformed posts ever made about how absurd Hal's claims were. Up until the time at around 45 years of age, Pat banged balls here and there recreationally like many of us but became the resident expert over 5 years who a number of other neophyte pool players came to feel was gospel. He is a bright individual with a strong command of the English language who specifically linked science, math and geometry to pool and they thought it was the way the game was played and to be learned. NO PRO PLAYER EVER PLAYED THAT WAY AND COULD CARE LESS ABOUT MATH AND SCIENCE.
Immediately thereafter, another member by the name of Lou Figueroa took a blood brother oath with Pat and also became one of the biggest critics and dissenters of Hal and CTE. It remained that way until about 2005 or 2006 when AZB was still in it's infancy that they all moved here because RSB was getting trashed and driven into the ground and oblivion by someone called Fast Larry.
Those who become devotees of CTE and about 20+ other aiming systems created by Hal like "Shiskebab" also switched to AZB for some semblance of sanity away from RSB and Fast Larry.
However, nothing changed with the CTE controversy between the players touting it and the naysayers creating more of a name for themselves and getting attention by attempting to bury it with the math, geometry, physics, 2D drawings etc. as their "proof" of it being impossible and a waste of time.
Some years went by with the same broken record over and over and over again with the same cast of characters as well as new ones on both sides. One thing to be known is there was always more getting involved with CTE and wanting to learn than those attempting to destroy it and save the world from a fate just under cancer and death.
And then enter a serious and accomplished pool player who won a pro tournament among top pros and a certified long time instructor of all facets of the game by the name of... STAN SHUFFETT.
That's when Pat Johnson, Lou Figueroa, Dan White, Joey Bautista, and the usual 4 or 5 hack pool players who come and go to be replaced by 4 or 5 new hack players every few years to be a part of the CTE "knocker" crowd went totally bonkers and insane wasting every single day of 12 years or so posting regurgitated garbage about CTE itself, Stan Shuffett, and any and all users of the system.
TOO BAD LOU-SERS!! Only a few months ago you claimed the book would NEVER be written - IT IS!
You said the Truth Series Video would never be done before the book came out because the book would never come out - IT IS!
Players from all over the country and world are excited and wanting it in a place where you LOU-SERS can't go because you are all BANNED from there UP FRONT! If you do attempt it and sneak in, it'll be BYE-BYE!
Keep wasting your lives and time here where you belong with the same old stuff.
**********************************************************************************************************************************
If you, as a pool enthusiast and player are interested in improving your game by becoming proficient with CTE (Center To Edge) Aiming, it won't be here.
23 years ago Hal Houle threw out a claim and teaser on an early internet group called Rec.Sport.Billiards (RSB) describing how only 3 lines were required to make nearly all cut shots on a 2:1 pool table with angles from 0 to about 90 degrees. The following was passed on to me by someone who was there in the loop and a close friend of Hal.
It didn't take many minutes at all for it to be posted that Mr. Patrick Johnson, with all of his infinite wisdom of 5 years steady experience since getting involved in pool, to come crashing down with one of the most scathing, uninformed posts ever made about how absurd Hal's claims were. Up until the time at around 45 years of age, Pat banged balls here and there recreationally like many of us but became the resident expert over 5 years who a number of other neophyte pool players came to feel was gospel. He is a bright individual with a strong command of the English language who specifically linked science, math and geometry to pool and they thought it was the way the game was played and to be learned. NO PRO PLAYER EVER PLAYED THAT WAY AND COULD CARE LESS ABOUT MATH AND SCIENCE.
Immediately thereafter, another member by the name of Lou Figueroa took a blood brother oath with Pat and also became one of the biggest critics and dissenters of Hal and CTE. It remained that way until about 2005 or 2006 when AZB was still in it's infancy that they all moved here because RSB was getting trashed and driven into the ground and oblivion by someone called Fast Larry.
Those who become devotees of CTE and about 20+ other aiming systems created by Hal like "Shiskebab" also switched to AZB for some semblance of sanity away from RSB and Fast Larry.
However, nothing changed with the CTE controversy between the players touting it and the naysayers creating more of a name for themselves and getting attention by attempting to bury it with the math, geometry, physics, 2D drawings etc. as their "proof" of it being impossible and a waste of time.
Some years went by with the same broken record over and over and over again with the same cast of characters as well as new ones on both sides. One thing to be known is there was always more getting involved with CTE and wanting to learn than those attempting to destroy it and save the world from a fate just under cancer and death.
And then enter a serious and accomplished pool player who won a pro tournament among top pros and a certified long time instructor of all facets of the game by the name of... STAN SHUFFETT.
That's when Pat Johnson, Lou Figueroa, Dan White, Joey Bautista, and the usual 4 or 5 hack pool players who come and go to be replaced by 4 or 5 new hack players every few years to be a part of the CTE "knocker" crowd went totally bonkers and insane wasting every single day of 12 years or so posting regurgitated garbage about CTE itself, Stan Shuffett, and any and all users of the system.
TOO BAD LOU-SERS!! Only a few months ago you claimed the book would NEVER be written - IT IS!
You said the Truth Series Video would never be done before the book came out because the book would never come out - IT IS!
Players from all over the country and world are excited and wanting it in a place where you LOU-SERS can't go because you are all BANNED from there UP FRONT! If you do attempt it and sneak in, it'll be BYE-BYE!
Keep wasting your lives and time here where you belong with the same old stuff.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
It's counterintuitive. Lots of us had a hard time with it starting out. Stan himself says clearly that work is required. I wouldn't buy the book without some grounding in the method. My advice is to find the closest person to you who teaches it and get at least an introduction to the method. I will be happy to do it for through video chat if you prefer. We can do split screen so that I can see you and me and it feels closer to being in the same room to a degree.I'm not a doubter or knocker of CTE. Have you read the books? The reason I ask, I've watched some of the Truth Series on YouTube, and I'll be honest, I am confused as hell. I'm not blaming the system, I might just be being dumb or it's not clicking at the moment. Does the book do a more systematic introduction of the system? I feel like the video might be for folks who already have some insider info on the system, or have read the book/took a lesson? Again, not doubting but I'm having a tough time parsing the info. I'm honestly interested in buying it but wonder if the book will help it "click" or if I will just remain dumb.
P.S. I'm loving my 2X5/3X4 Rugged case. It's a BEAST, thanks for making such a great product.
Not a huge ego. CTE is nothing more than a method of alignment/aiming. The huge "ego" is on the part of the knockers. The teachers and enthusiasts simply enjoy the results seen and felt when someone learns how to use it correctly. Those "I got it" moments and the subsequent improvement in pocketing is truly a joy to behold. FOR ME it's like watching a person's eyes light up when they get the case they designed and being totally happy with it.
The answer is YES, the information in the book is enough to learn everything you need to know about CTE. Can you digest it? Maybe, maybe not. But there is a decent sized group ready to help you with ANY questions you have who isn't looking for compensation. If you then later decide you want professional qualified instruction then there some teachers out there who can do that for you.
Chirp... chirp... chirp
who is trying to plagiarize? While there might not be a best way to aim there are certainly far worse ways to aim than CTE.
CTE can be explained simply. An objective method of alignment and aiming that brings the user to the no-imagination shot line. It can also be learned simply. But as with many things in life there is more depth to be explored and mastered. For example I have taught people the basics that grant them better aiming for a lot of the shots they take. But if they haven't studied it enough to how outside/inside visual sweeps can change a shot from a shot to a pocket into a shot that banks they won't have the full benefit.
Kind of like how I can learn to kick with a geometrically perfect kicking system but the system can't account for the condition of the table, the effects of speed and spin, the age of the cushions and so on. The system gives the baseline and experience allows the shooter to adjust as needed if needed.