CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored

[JB Cases]

Any chance we can get a live stream of you throwing balls out on the table and draining ridiculous banks? It would be convincing but as of yet the only documented case of this happening is from Kentucky state banks champion Stan Shuffett.

would it matter if I did? I mean either I am lying to you in order promote something that doesn't work for some reason OR it works but nothing I demonstrate would really matter because you are convinced that it's all subconscious adjustment.

So what's the point really? If I had a way to prove something to your satisfaction would it make a difference to the users?

 

[JB Cases]

So do you believe the 2x1 table is necessary or will the same shot work on a 1.88x1 table?

What does it matter? Are we competing on 1.88 ratio tables? Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a range of shots that work using CTE aiming on a 2x1 table but that this range is less on a 1x1.5 table. What would it matter since we don't compete on anything but 2x1 tables?

Furthermore what If there were some other system, CTE-adjacent if you will that would have all of the same range? Maybe such a system would be discovered/developed and used successfully if something other that 2x1 becomes the standard. Or not. Maybe we go back to pure feel or ghost ball only.

Right now we have CTE and other OBJECTIVE systems to use on the playing field that we compete on. They work. I know that you NEED more than "they work" but what you need and what I need don't have to be the same. I need to be confident when I am shooting pool and having an aiming system that works so well that I can trust it for almost every shot I am faced with is an advantage over opponents who are just winging it through feel. In order to develop enough skill to pocket balls as well as I do through feel the shooter would need to do a lot more brute force trial and error training to get there in my opinion. Conversely the person who has a good reliable aiming method can get much better and faster results when they put in the same amount of time practicing.

Why?

Well, for the same reason that anyone gets better results when they have good tools and the propensity to learn how to use them properly. One's capabilities are multiplied with good tools. Even when someone doesn't learn to use good tools to their fullest potential then they can still derive great benefit. Even when the tool itself isn't actually as great as the "advertising" suggests it can still be incredibly good.

So, while it is an activity to deconstruct tools in order to understand them it is also wise to remember that every user doesn't need to understand the underlying mechanics in order to successfully use the tools.

 

[Dan White]

would it matter if I did? I mean either I am lying to you in order promote something that doesn't work for some reason OR it works but nothing I demonstrate would really matter because you are convinced that it's all subconscious adjustment.

So what's the point really? If I had a way to prove something to your satisfaction would it make a difference to the users?

Let's look at it another way. What would happen if we did some experiments and, Holy Shit, we actually figured out that CTE works just the way Stan and JB and mohrt etc said it does! Why are you being so defensive? If I was using a rock solid method on the table and some numbnutz came along to prove me wrong I'd feed him all the rope he needed to hang himself. He might even become a convert.

Example: I know I keep using this because it is a simple example. Poolology. I don't know of anyone who says it doesn't work right out of the box like in 5 minutes. I know for a fact that Brian welcomes critics because he knows the system inside and out and has all the answers. Why can't scrutinizing CTE be more like that?

I don't think you are lying but I do think you are biased. You'd never make it onto the jury, so to speak.

 

[Dan White]

What does it matter? Are we competing on 1.88 ratio tables? Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a range of shots that work using CTE aiming on a 2x1 table but that this range is less on a 1x1.5 table. What would it matter since we don't compete on anything but 2x1 tables?

It matters because it would then constitute a false claim. If a player is led to believe CTE will find the shot line for him and he doesn't need to spend hours at the table developing a feel for the shot line, he's going to take that short cut and plop down his money. But what if CTE really depended on that same feel for the shot line? Is that fair to the consumer?

Furthermore what If there were some other system, CTE-adjacent if you will that would have all of the same range? Maybe such a system would be discovered/developed and used successfully if something other that 2x1 becomes the standard. Or not. Maybe we go back to pure feel or ghost ball only.

Right now we have CTE and other OBJECTIVE systems to use on the playing field that we compete on.

Just because you keep saying OBJECTIVE does not make it so.

They work. I know that you NEED more than "they work" but what you need and what I need don't have to be the same. I need to be confident when I am shooting pool and having an aiming system that works so well that I can trust it for almost every shot I am faced with is an advantage over opponents who are just winging it through feel. In order to develop enough skill to pocket balls as well as I do through feel the shooter would need to do a lot more brute force trial and error training to get there in my opinion. Conversely the person who has a good reliable aiming method can get much better and faster results when they put in the same amount of time practicing.

Why?

Well, for the same reason that anyone gets better results when they have good tools and the propensity to learn how to use them properly. One's capabilities are multiplied with good tools. Even when someone doesn't learn to use good tools to their fullest potential then they can still derive great benefit. Even when the tool itself isn't actually as great as the "advertising" suggests it can still be incredibly good.

There is a difference between touting how great your product is through advertising, as in "the greatest case the world has yet seen" versus concrete claims such as "only works on a 2x1 table," "is objective," "negates throw," "does not require the shooter to recognize the shot line to the pocket" and so on.

I have some ideas with mohrt that might shed more light on what is really happening. I just need a little time and effort to get there. We'll see.

So, while it is an activity to deconstruct tools in order to understand them it is also wise to remember that every user doesn't need to understand the underlying mechanics in order to successfully use the tools.

 

[mohrt]

Let's look at it another way. What would happen if we did some experiments and, Holy Shit, we actually figured out that CTE works just the way Stan and JB and mohrt etc said it does! Why are you being so defensive? If I was using a rock solid method on the table and some numbnutz came along to prove me wrong I'd feed him all the rope he needed to hang himself. He might even become a convert.

Example: I know I keep using this because it is a simple example. Poolology. I don't know of anyone who says it doesn't work right out of the box like in 5 minutes. I know for a fact that Brian welcomes critics because he knows the system inside and out and has all the answers. Why can't scrutinizing CTE be more like that?

I don't think you are lying but I do think you are biased. You'd never make it onto the jury, so to speak.

Every single aiming system I've ever seen, except CTE, is based on target-shooting aiming. That is, putting your vision center directly behind the cueball and looking right down the shot line. This is generally how everyone aims, so picking up quickly on a system based on these fundamentals is expected. Finding that shot line can vary, but it's mostly through visual acuity ie. feel. CTE is the only one that uses an offset of the eyes to find the shot line through a combination of site lines and CCB. That is, IMHO, why CTE isn't something you should expect to work right out of the box without a bit of relearning. It's odd and different, but can be learned. Like a right handed person shooting left handed. I'm not a great left handed shooter but I'll guarantee if I shoot 50 left-handed shots a day for a month I'll see drastic improvement. CTE is no different.

You said before you can't see the SL and AL at the same time. Some people are quicker at this than others. I'd start with super basic close shots until you can get these fundamentals down.

 

[cookie man]

It matters because it would then constitute a false claim. If a player is led to believe CTE will find the shot line for him and he doesn't need to spend hours at the table developing a feel for the shot line, he's going to take that short cut and plop down his money. But what if CTE really depended on that same feel for the shot line? Is that fair to the consumer?


Just because you keep saying OBJECTIVE does not make it so.


There is a difference between touting how great your product is through advertising, as in "the greatest case the world has yet seen" versus concrete claims such as "only works on a 2x1 table," "is objective," "negates throw," "does not require the shooter to recognize the shot line to the pocket" and so on.

I have some ideas with mohrt that might shed more light on what is really happening. I just need a little time and effort to get there. We'll see.

You must work for CNN with all this false narrative shit you post. PROVE your points. You can't. It's a shame that management here allows you to keep making these false statements

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PROVE your points. You can't. It's a shame that management here allows you to keep making these false statements

Oh, the irony....

lol

pj
chgo

 

[mohrt]

It matters because it would then constitute a false claim. If a player is led to believe CTE will find the shot line for him and he doesn't need to spend hours at the table developing a feel for the shot line, he's going to take that short cut and plop down his money. But what if CTE really depended on that same feel for the shot line? Is that fair to the consumer?

This isn't specifically what is claimed at all. CTE still takes time to learn and master. I will go to say, after spending a decade with the system, that you can reach a level of aiming mastery much quicker than with traditional ROTE aiming. If I were to guess, you can do in < 100,000 shots what would take you 1,000,000 with traditional aiming, and also acquire a higher ball pocketing % and also easier to maintain. So CTE requires less effort for more gain. But not a magic bullet that takes no effort.

Just because you keep saying OBJECTIVE does not make it so.


There is a difference between touting how great your product is through advertising, as in "the greatest case the world has yet seen" versus concrete claims such as "only works on a 2x1 table," "is objective," "negates throw," "does not require the shooter to recognize the shot line to the pocket" and so on.

I have some ideas with mohrt that might shed more light on what is really happening. I just need a little time and effort to get there. We'll see.

There is a lot of slight in these words

You could probably re-word "only works on a 2x1 table" to "only works FOR ALL SHOTS on a table where the pockets form perfect squares." The CTE 15/30/45/60 alignments happen to lead to shot lines for pockets at 90 degree angles. Can you make CTE work on a non 2x1 table, like 2.118? I'd suspect NOT for all shots using the 15/30/45/60 alignments. You'd have to come up with something not CTE. That said, our eyes still see the basic perception principles on any surface, as Stan demonstrates on a kitchen counter top. They just won't necessarily lead to pockets.

As for "is objective", well that's a loaded statement around here When Stan says CTE is objective, he is implying that you don't estimate the shot line, instead you put your eyes at an offset to see the perfect AL and SL, then step the cueball to see the exact shot line. That can be construed as "objective", as there is only one place for each step that is perfect and ends at the exact shot line. Hal discovered that our perception of two spheres on a 2x1 (see above) table leads us to shot lines with this process. PJ likes to argue that the "choice of perfect perception" is the feel element here. But in reality, there is no choice. The perfect alignment is consistent and repeatable. IMHO far more reliable and maintainable than estimating the shot line through trial and error. Especially on banks and shots where the pocket is far out of our peripheral vision.

As for negating throw, the built-in overcut aids in minimizing CIT for a large majority of shots. You still need to know how to handle CIT to a certain degree, along with speed, spin, table conditions, etc. I don't concern myself about CIT too much, IMHO it's largely overstated. That said, the built-in overcut is not a magical cure for any and all CIT.

As for recognizing the shot line to the pocket, that knowledge is 100% required to choose the correct perception and pivot. Not necessary for execution.

 

[Dan White]

Every single aiming system I've ever seen, except CTE, is based on target-shooting aiming. That is, putting your vision center directly behind the cueball and looking right down the shot line. This is generally how everyone aims, so picking up quickly on a system based on these fundamentals is expected. Finding that shot line can vary, but it's mostly through visual acuity ie. feel. CTE is the only one that uses an offset of the eyes to find the shot line through a combination of site lines and CCB. That is, IMHO, why CTE isn't something you should expect to work right out of the box without a bit of relearning. It's odd and different, but can be learned. Like a right handed person shooting left handed. I'm not a great left handed shooter but I'll guarantee if I shoot 50 left-handed shots a day for a month I'll see drastic improvement. CTE is no different

This is true. CTE is more complicated than those other systems, at least at first. With HAMB or fractions the aiming system ultimately relies on the shooter's stored knowledge of when the shot is on. With Poolology the position of the balls on the table is mathematically linked to the pocket using the diamonds. With CTE finding the visual lines is all well and good, but the problem is there is no apparrent link between these lines and the pocket. As I'd argue we've been finding, the "reasons" for the link such as the 2x1 shape of the table appear not to stand up to scrutiny.

You said before you can't see the SL and AL at the same time. Some people are quicker at this than others. I'd start with super basic close shots until you can get these fundamentals down.

I don't think it is possible really to see both lines as on at the same time. I thought the recommended method was to find the first line then the second and the result is that you are in between the two and not actually seeing each line with each eye.

 

[mohrt]

This is true. CTE is more complicated than those other systems, at least at first. With HAMB or fractions the aiming system ultimately relies on the shooter's stored knowledge of when the shot is on. With Poolology the position of the balls on the table is mathematically linked to the pocket using the diamonds. With CTE finding the visual lines is all well and good, but the problem is there is no apparrent link between these lines and the pocket. As I'd argue we've been finding, the "reasons" for the link such as the 2x1 shape of the table appear not to stand up to scrutiny.

I don't think it is possible really to see both lines as on at the same time. I thought the recommended me

Well, our vision is parallax. There is a place where they both look "on" although covering one eye then the other may not look the same for both lines. For example, setup the shot for my "A CTE shot for you to try" so the CB and OB are aligned straight up the table. We will look at one line: CB OB center-to-center. Now stand so that the CB and OB centers are lined up perfectly to the middle of the end rail. There should be only ONE place where it looks perfect. Now, cover one eye. Is it no longer lined up? Now switch covering eyes. Is it still no longer lined up? I tried this experiment the other day, and for me neither eye was directly on the center-to-center, but with parallax I did find a place where the alignment looked perfect. This is a similar concept to lining up SL and AL. You won't see the the SL and AL perfectly by individually covering your eyes, but together there is one perfect sight picture were the left eye is dominant on the left line and right eye is dominant on the right line. This ends in our mid-face vision on a parallax line between SL and AL.

 

[Dan White]

Well, our vision is parallax. There is a place where they both look "on" although covering one eye then the other may not look the same for both lines. For example, setup the shot for my "A CTE shot for you to try" so the CB and OB are aligned straight up the table. We will look at one line: CB OB center-to-center. Now stand so that the CB and OB centers are lined up perfectly to the middle of the end rail. There should be only ONE place where it looks perfect. Now, cover one eye. Is it no longer lined up? Now switch covering eyes. Is it still no longer lined up? I tried this experiment the other day, and for me neither eye was directly on the center-to-center, but with parallax I did find a place where the alignment looked perfect. This is a similar concept to lining up SL and AL. You won't see the the SL and AL perfectly by individually covering your eyes, but together there is one perfect sight picture were the left eye is dominant on the left line and right eye is dominant on the right line. This ends in our mid-face vision on a parallax line between SL and AL.

So if I'm left handed and I'm cutting the ball to the right in this case I'm lining up the right edge cb with C (assuming ABC left to right) and the cb center to ob left edge, right? Which way do I turn my face and how much? I assume the two lines have to look "on" with the face turned. I know you went over all this already so I'll just go look for it again.

None of this ties the ball positions to a pocket, BTW.

 

[mohrt]

So if I'm left handed and I'm cutting the ball to the right in this case I'm lining up the right edge cb with C (assuming ABC left to right) and the cb center to ob left edge, right? Which way do I turn my face and how much? I assume the two lines have to look "on" with the face turned. I know you went over all this already so I'll just go look for it again.

None of this ties the ball positions to a pocket, BTW.

If you are shooting a 30 inside (the shot I've been predominantly discussing thus far) and this is a right cut, the CB right edge is on OB center (AL) and the CB center is on OB left edge (SL). This is true for both left and right handed players. For the left handed player you'll have to turn your body a bit more to get out of the way of the cue when you bring it on the shot line. Your face should be angled slightly toward the pocket you are shooting into. The exact face angle will work itself out, just make sure your head is poked out far enough to see the AL, and such that you can also see the SL. Stan says "stand behind the AL such that you can see the SL". That doesn't mean stand directly behind the AL, but it means make sure your head is poked out there to it. You might start on the AL, then adjust to see both SL and AL if necessary. If you do that correctly, then eye dominance will also be good and face angle will be good.

 

[bbb]

Well, our vision is parallax. There is a place where they both look "on" although covering one eye then the other may not look the same for both lines. For example, setup the shot for my "A CTE shot for you to try" so the CB and OB are aligned straight up the table. We will look at one line: CB OB center-to-center. Now stand so that the CB and OB centers are lined up perfectly to the middle of the end rail. There should be only ONE place where it looks perfect. Now, cover one eye. Is it no longer lined up? Now switch covering eyes. Is it still no longer lined up? I tried this experiment the other day, and for me neither eye was directly on the center-to-center, but with parallax I did find a place where the alignment looked perfect. This is a similar concept to lining up SL and AL. You won't see the the SL and AL perfectly by individually covering your eyes, but together there is one perfect sight picture were the left eye is dominant on the left line and right eye is dominant on the right line. This ends in our mid-face vision on a parallax line between SL and AL.

isnt the mid face vision on a parallex line between SL and AL
the same place a noser aimer would see it???

 

[mohrt]

isnt the mid face vision on a parallex line between SL and AL
the same place a noser aimer would see it???

mid-face vision is not the same as your personal vision center. some people have different eye dominances. this is strictly mid-face. if your personal vision center is directly on your nose, then maybe. We are also on an angled face here too.

 

[Dan White]

If you are shooting a 30 inside (the shot I've been predominantly discussing thus far) and this is a right cut, the CB left edge is on OB center (AL) and the CB center is on OB left edge (S ).

I assume this is a typo. Can you correct it?

This is true for both left and right handed players. For the left handed player you'll have to turn your body a bit more to get out of the way of the cue when you bring it on the shot line. Your face should be angled slightly toward the pocket you are shooting into. The exact face angle will work itself out, just make sure your head is poked out far enough to see the AL, and such that you can also see the SL. Stan says "stand behind the AL such that you can see the SL". That doesn't mean stand directly behind the AL, but it means make sure your head is poked out there to it. You might start on the AL, then adjust to see both SL and AL if necessary. If you do that correctly, then eye dominance will also be good and face angle will be good.

 

[bbb]

mid-face vision is not the same as your personal vision center. some people have different eye dominances. this is strictly mid-face. if your personal vision center is directly on your nose, then maybe. We are also on an angled face here too.

thanks for the reply

 

[JB Cases]

Let's look at it another way. What would happen if we did some experiments and, Holy Shit, we actually figured out that CTE works just the way Stan and JB and mohrt etc said it does! Why are you being so defensive? If I was using a rock solid method on the table and some numbnutz came along to prove me wrong I'd feed him all the rope he needed to hang himself. He might even become a convert.

Example: I know I keep using this because it is a simple example. Poolology. I don't know of anyone who says it doesn't work right out of the box like in 5 minutes. I know for a fact that Brian welcomes critics because he knows the system inside and out and has all the answers. Why can't scrutinizing CTE be more like that?

I don't think you are lying but I do think you are biased. You'd never make it onto the jury, so to speak.

Nothing, literally NOTHING in the universe is stopping you from doing anything you want to concerning CTE. You are free to dissect it, experiment, test, or whatever you prefer to do. Any assertions you make will be answered in accordance with their pertinence to the usage.

If someone tells me that to make fire I need to find combustable material and something to make a spark and fan the flames for 30 minutes and I do all three things and fire happens when I need fire then I am good. If later someone says I don't need to fan the flames at all and I try it and get fire when I need fire then great. The proof is in the creation of fire, not in any particular step in the instruction. Either fire results from following the instructions or it doesn't. IF it does then I have a working method to create fire. I don't need to know the chemical reactions that cause fire, I don't need to know what temperature that things ignite at. I have simple instructions that work to provide what I need.

Poology works? Ok great. What else do I need to know? I follow the directions that Brian has created and it gets me to the shot line. Is there something else I must know to use that system? Would more knowledge make it easier or better for me to use that system? Maybe you feel more comfort in knowing the underlying reasoning that makes poolology work. If so then it's great if Brian provided that to your satisfaction. But the fact is that Brian created a system that works by identifying ball positions on a grid system and doing some simple math to find the fractional overlap that corresponds to the shot line from the user's perspective. The user just needs to know the instructions and apply them correctly to get to the shot line.

Thank you for making my point for me.

You think that I am biased? In what way? For what reason? If I am not lying then am I telling the truth? Or is this simply a way for you to say that biased=deluded? Do you think that I am self-deluded and incapable of assessing the viability of an aiming method? What might the source of that bias be? Experience on the table? Practice with the aiming method? Addressing the critical comments on the table to see whether CTE handles them or not?

Is my alleged bias attributive, cognitive, optimistic, or what?

Are you not biased AGAINST certain types of comments? If so then why? Are you CERTAIN that CTE doesn't work as claimed? Or do you just think so based on some frame of reference in which certain statements about CTE don't fit into?

Where does "it works" fit into this? If something "just works" then what is the problem? Seems to me that if something provably works for the goal that it is designed for then stating that it can't work as advertised is kind of silly. While you MIGHT be correct being correct doesn't matter to the practical usage for the goal. Your criticism of the language used to describe the benefit of using the method is not fundamental to the usage of the method. Now, could your criticism, assuming that it is correct, lead to innovation that makes the method even better? Possibly. Could it lead to the destruction of the method as a viable tool for the task? Probably not because people value practical and usable tools over academic discussion of those tools.

At this moment it is far more likely that many more people are successfully learning and USING CTE effectively than are reading your criticism and pondering them. Nothing you say changes the fundamental bottom line that CTE is effective and accurate. I have no idea whether CTE does or does work on other playing fields than 2x1. I do know that it works on a 2x1 playing field that we use all over the world in competition at all levels. Do I need more than that? I don't think so.

 

[cookie man]

Oh, the irony....

lol

pj
chgo

The irony of what, you being wrong and thinking CTE is a fractional system for over 20 years.

 

[mohrt]

I assume this is a typo. Can you correct it?

Corrected, I meant to say CB right edge.

 

[JB Cases]

It matters because it would then constitute a false claim. If a player is led to believe CTE will find the shot line for him and he doesn't need to spend hours at the table developing a feel for the shot line, he's going to take that short cut and plop down his money. But what if CTE really depended on that same feel for the shot line? Is that fair to the consumer?

IF it were an incorrect claim then it would not necessarily be a deliberately false claim. Do you think that feel and CTE are the same when it comes to developing aiming ability in pool? What would you propose to test this hypothesis? Is it "fair" to the consumer? To charge for knowledge?

IF CTE were nothing more than feel-based aiming then no, it would not be "fair" to charge or teach it. Is that your contention?

Just because you keep saying OBJECTIVE does not make it so.

Nor does it make it not so. Is measuring by feel likely to produce as much accuracy as measuring with a ruler?

There is a difference between touting how great your product is through advertising, as in "the greatest case the world has yet seen" versus concrete claims such as "only works on a 2x1 table," "is objective," "negates throw," "does not require the shooter to recognize the shot line to the pocket" and so on.

ok. and is any of that material to the effectiveness of the system when used?

I have some ideas with mohrt that might shed more light on what is really happening. I just need a little time and effort to get there. We'll see.

Glad that Hal Houle and Stan Shuffett have provided you with something to do. I am off to use CTE in a $200 a game ten ahead match. I am currently plus 6. Hoping that I can finish this today and regardless of where it goes I have to thank Stan for providing me with an objective method that is now even better than before. And the before version was pretty great.