mohrt, with all due respect, you have a way of making declarative statements about CTE and then massaging them around into something else, or disowning those statements altogether when the are challenged in more detail:
1. CTE works because of the 2x1 table, but when questioned, then maybe it will work on other dimensions,
2. CTE overcomes CIT because of the over cut and because, well, it's CTE. When challenged with a video clearly showing the opposite, you say, you never think about it and it hasn't been a problem. You say that a lot.
3. You have to align one eye with the AL and the other with the SL but when performed exactly that way with a laser video, well then maybe saying that was not a good idea as your eyes are not actually on those lines,
I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm trying to get straight answers and it isn't happening. If you were a salesman I'd say you need to go back and learn more about your product before trying to sell it again.
I do have some comments about your laser video reply but that will have to wait until a bit later.
I think you are doing the massaging here, but ok.
1. The whole declaration around "CTE works on a 2x1 table" means that using CTE you can find a NISL connection to most, if not all pockets on the table, for a given CB/OB position, with a CTE perception and pivot. This can be demonstrated. It does NOT say anything about what might happen if a rail is missing. I'm not going to make assumptions about what happens on a non-2x1 table, nor should you massage that statement into something other than what it is.
2. I've been extremely clear on my interpretation of CTE and CIT. Again, I'm clear about what I'm doing at the table. CTE is an aim-line connection tool. Stan claims there is a built-in overcut for CIT. I don't think it is a magic bullet at all. I've made my statement about it multiple times.
3. Again I've stated this before, and I guess I'll state it again. I'm not sugar coating anything. Our perception, standing at a table behind the CB/OB on a table surface, does not work like 2D lines, lasers and protractors. 2D drawings are useful for instruction, but at the table we see with depth. Our eyes focus on objects with two lines of sight that converge. So although the AL and SL are drawn on paper as parallel lines, that is not how we perceive them. When we "stand behind the AL so that we an also see the SL", it is not a 2D parallel laser lines our eyes are looking down. However, we have the ability to find the "perfect perception", meaning, the AL and SL look perfect from
one and only one correct CTE offset. It is repeatable and consistent. It takes practice to familiarize yourself with it.
4. I'm not selling anything. I don't make a dime from CTE. I do however, use it with a high degree of success. I do know it works, I do know I look at the perceptions with the AL and SL and find the NISL that connects to the intended pocket. If I didn't, I wouldn't back it up. Am I a pro? No. I don't play pool for a living. It is a hobby. But CTE sure helps make it more enjoyable.
I think what would be most helpful is if we take one specific shot setup and perception, and work it until there are no more questions asked, then possibly move onto a new shot. That was the original intent of this thread. That said, I didn't fully realize I had setup a shot where its a dead half-ball hit to the corner. That was not intentional. So we started adding a few shots where the OB and CB are backed up, and that is fine. So let's concentrate on these few shots, and see where our execution of them differs until we can all agree that CTE works, or maybe we discover it just can't be done for everyone. At least with instruction over the internet. It's not easy not being right there.