A real CTE shot for you to try.

[bbb]

I think we are getting closer. Your definition of "the same" for (the 30) is aligning the SL and AL in a physically identical way for every orientation. My definition of "the same" is aligning to the SL and AL as a perception that results in a physically unique NISL. This perception is affected by the orientation of the CB and OB on the table surface. You say the pocket influences the perception, I say the table surface as a whole influences the perception.

mohrt
isnt the orientation of the
cue ball/ object ball/ and pocket
that determines what perception to use?
i dont understand how the rest of the table surface is relevant
the purpose of the perception is to send the object ball to a specific target ...yes?

 

[mohrt]

mohrt
isnt the orientation of the
cue ball/ object ball/ and pocket
that determines what perception to use?
i dont understand how the rest of the table surface is relevant
the purpose of the perception is to send the object ball to a specific target ...yes?

Yes the specific orientation and pocket determines which perception and pivot to use. From there you put your eyes at an offset to see AL and SL and then find CCB.

 

[mohrt]

That's why they call it subconscious.

pj
chgo

If I’m subconsciously changing how to see the AL and SL such that CCB is the shot line consistently and repeatable accurate with no guessing, then I guess you are right?

 

[Dan White]

I think we are getting closer. Your definition of "the same" for (the 30) is aligning the SL and AL in a physically identical way for every orientation. My definition of "the same" is aligning to the SL and AL as a perception that results in a physically unique NISL. This perception is affected by the orientation of the CB and OB on the table surface. You say the pocket influences the perception, I say the table surface as a whole influences the perception.

I wouldn't say the pocket location influences the perception. It's more like it gives you a target to aim towards. The pocket location does not "fool" your perception into seeing things differently the way you say CTE does.

It's this kind of example that is frustrating. The 2x1 playing surface. You say that the reason CTE works is because of the shape of the table and probably something about the rails that fools you into seeing different angles as the same perception that actually do guide the ball to the pocket. This thinking doesn't stand up to scrutiny when logic is applied. Two examples:

1. Awhile back I showed an example of a non 2x1 table where you block off the side rail or even butt two tables next to each other. Most of the CTE guys, I believe, said the same shot would still work even though it is no longer 2x1. That alone disproves the 2x1 mantra.

2. If the 2x1 surface makes CTE work then how do curtain shots work? You are blocking off half the table or even 3/4 of the table on some of Stan's bank videos yet the shots still go. Why?

Instead of addressing these obvious conflicts in logic and maybe even giving up on the notion that 2x1 even matters, the CTE supporters attack the messenger.

Just sayin'

 

[bbb]

Yes the specific orientation and pocket determines which perception and pivot to use. From there you put your eyes at an offset to see AL and SL and then find CCB.

Thanks for your reply
very much appreciate it

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If I’m subconsciously changing how to see the AL and SL such that CCB is the shot line consistently and repeatable accurate with no guessing, then I guess you are right?

And for once, so are you.

Except that the subconscious part of aiming isn't "guessing" - that's another misunderstanding of yours.

pj
chgo

 

[bbb]

Dan
If i remember correctly
You cut off the side of the table that had nothing to do with the shot
So the angle to the pocket could still be categorized into one of the CTE perceptions
I could be misremembering

 

[Dan White]

Dan
If i remember correctly
You cut off the side of the table that had nothing to do with the shot
So the angle to the pocket could still be categorized into one of the CTE perceptions
I could be misremembering

Yes that was the point of that post, meaning that you can still do it without a 2x1 table. Cookie said you couldn't shoot into the bottom pocket but he isn't thinking about what is really happening in that scenario. There is no difference between the two shots other than maybe a different visual.choice.

 

[mohrt]

I wouldn't say the pocket location influences the perception. It's more like it gives you a target to aim towards. The pocket location does not "fool" your perception into seeing things differently the way you say CTE does.

It's this kind of example that is frustrating. The 2x1 playing surface. You say that the reason CTE works is because of the shape of the table and probably something about the rails that fools you into seeing different angles as the same perception that actually do guide the ball to the pocket. This thinking doesn't stand up to scrutiny when logic is applied. Two examples:

1. Awhile back I showed an example of a non 2x1 table where you block off the side rail or even butt two tables next to each other. Most of the CTE guys, I believe, said the same shot would still work even though it is no longer 2x1. That alone disproves the 2x1 mantra.

2. If the 2x1 surface makes CTE work then how do curtain shots work? You are blocking off half the table or even 3/4 of the table on some of Stan's bank videos yet the shots still go. Why?

Instead of addressing these obvious conflicts in logic and maybe even giving up on the notion that 2x1 even matters, the CTE supporters attack the messenger.

Just sayin'

I don't recall details around your non 2x1 table, but here are my ideas around that. When a CTE perception/pivot is performed on 2x1 table, or more specifically, a table where pockets are adjacent to each other to form perfect squares, most if not all of the CTE perception combinations (15I/R, 15I/L, etc) for a given CB/OB orientation will lead to a pocket. (once in awhile a NISL doesn't lead anywhere, within 4 rails at least). So when you chop off part of the table, some of the combinations that previously led to pockets will no longer work. Maybe some of them will still work, such as shots that do not involve the area of the table you altered. I don't know, I haven't tested it. But that would be my hypothesis. What you are assuming is if the table is altered any tiny bit, then nothing works anymore. I don't think any CTE users implied that, but I doubt anyone tested it either.

Curtain shots are interesting. I'm pretty sure if you covered up the entire table and you had no rails in sight, nothing would work. But I have tested curtain shots covering 1/2 the table and have been pretty successful with it. My shot making percentages did go down with curtains, especially on tougher cuts, so having the whole table in view (ie. normal playing conditions) does help perception accuracy.

 

[mohrt]

And for once, so are you.

Except that the subconscious part of aiming isn't "guessing" - that's another misunderstanding of yours.

pj
chgo

So my question to this is, how would my guesses, or intelligent adjustments, or whatever you labeled them as, how would they alter the way an AL and SL look at a given orientation? I know what I see and align to, I’m not standing there going “yeah the AL and SL could look right from here and here and here but I choose this one”. That isn’t the case. The alignment is good from one spot only. I think the reason Dan isn’t getting it to work is because his eye dominance may be incorrect. It’s easy to say, make one eye dominant for both lines, especially to the newcomer.

I have two green laser lines ordered, I’m going to do some tests with how the correct perception alignment compares to the 2D laser lines at various orientations. Maybe I’ll uncover something interesting

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...how would my guesses, or intelligent adjustments, or whatever you labeled them as, how would they alter the way an AL and SL look at a given orientation?

I think they're simply memories of how they looked for previous successful similar shots, which your subconscious helpfully files and retrieves for you.

That's also the definition of aiming by feel - with enough practice it can seem effortlessly mechanical, but that just means you're good at it.

Embrace your skill!

pj
chgo

 

[mohrt]

I think they're simply memories of how they looked for previous successful similar shots, which your subconscious helpfully files and retrieves for you.

That's also the definition of aiming by feel - with enough practice it can seem effortlessly mechanical, but that just means you're good at it.

Embrace your skill!

pj
chgo

I do remember! CB edge to AL and CBC to SL

 

[Low500]

I do remember! CB edge to AL and CBC to SL

You're a decent fella. You're a good CTE instructor too.
In this joint, however, you're peeing into the wind and letting it blow back in your face.
The members of the "pest posse" will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER admit they have been wrong.
Doesn't matter what you say or what you prove or how you attempt to help them....they've always got some foolish "rebuttal". (even the ones who have bought the book...and there's some in here too. They've slipped up and quoted words and phrases they could not possibly know uness they had the material)
Give it up and let 'em dust. There are too many guys at the REAL learning site who need your commentary.
There was one in here who was whining about getting one "used" maybe at half price. Maybe he'd give half off on some of those pool cues he makes..."all in the interest of seeing a player get better and advocate his cues", of course.
Regards

 

[cookie man]

1. Awhile back I showed an example of a non 2x1 table where you block off the side rail or even butt two tables next to each other. Most of the CTE guys, I believe, said the same shot would still work even though it is no longer 2x1. That alone disproves the 2x1 mantra.

2. If the 2x1 surface makes CTE work then how do curtain shots work? You are blocking off half the table or even 3/4 of the table on some of Stan's bank videos yet the shots still go. Why?

Instead of addressing these obvious conflicts in logic and maybe even giving up on the notion that 2x1 even matters, the CTE supporters attack the messenger.

Just sayin'

1. Using the ball alignment in this thread, 30 inside. Off of this setup the OB with the proper CTE perceptions track to all 6 pockets on a regulation 2 x 1 table. 30 inside cuts into the left and right corner pockets. 30 outside banks one rail back towards you as does the 15 inside bank back towards you. 15 outside tracks 3 rails back to the corners. 45 inside tracks two rails to a side pocket and 45 outside tracks 3 rails to a side pocket. That's CTE in it's entirety from one ball position.
Now if you cut off one side of the table, yes you can still make the ball in the left corner pockets or the right corner pockets using CTE. However that's what i would call partial CTE because at that point, with the table cut off, the perceptions would no longer track to all 6 pockets.

2. Curtain shots on a 2x1 surface follow the same principle. If you can determine one CTE alignment from the ball positions then the progressions through the CTE perceptions will take you to pockets. It's really pretty simple once you understand it.

Not attacking the messenger, just correcting him with actual facts instead of "I think this is what happens"

 

[JB Cases]

I wouldn't say the pocket location influences the perception. It's more like it gives you a target to aim towards. The pocket location does not "fool" your perception into seeing things differently the way you say CTE does.

It's this kind of example that is frustrating. The 2x1 playing surface. You say that the reason CTE works is because of the shape of the table and probably something about the rails that fools you into seeing different angles as the same perception that actually do guide the ball to the pocket. This thinking doesn't stand up to scrutiny when logic is applied. Two examples:

1. Awhile back I showed an example of a non 2x1 table where you block off the side rail or even butt two tables next to each other. Most of the CTE guys, I believe, said the same shot would still work even though it is no longer 2x1. That alone disproves the 2x1 mantra.

2. If the 2x1 surface makes CTE work then how do curtain shots work? You are blocking off half the table or even 3/4 of the table on some of Stan's bank videos yet the shots still go. Why?

Instead of addressing these obvious conflicts in logic and maybe even giving up on the notion that 2x1 even matters, the CTE supporters attack the messenger.

Just sayin'

How dense can you be?

Context matters. There are people who misspeak, get facts wrong, baby remember names and still put out more meaningful content in one post than a nitpicker critic does in a lifetime.

There shouldn't be any clarification needed to understand that "only works on a 2*1 table means that it clearly works on any part of a 2*1 table for all possible shots to whatever pocket is in that area.

That area will contain a pocket at a 90 degree intersection. In fact, one could put a pocket on an infinite plane and as long as one draws two lines emanating from it at 90 degrees to each other then it is likely that wherever the cue ball and object ball are located on that plane and within sight of the pocket that there is a cte solution for that shot to that pocket.

You must know this and understand it but you disingenuously continue to act like this is some proof that cte doesn't work as claimed.

As for your continued nonsense about subconscious adjustment. Get over it. CTE is a fully conscious process that the shooter uses to figure out where to put the cue down.

If the instructions inform the subconscious to the point that the subconscious goes there it is right there and forces the shooter to adopt the correct shot line consistently then that's great.

If Stan were to say that cte is 99% objective and the subconscious takes over in the last moment then you would find fault with that. Yes you would because that's what nitpickers do. They don't create, they denigrate.

The fact is Dan that you and others like to use the subconscious as your catch-all. How about you get some zen and realize that the highest form of consciousness is to be fully present and focused. That's what cte users have told you innumerable times, we are fully present and focused on the steps and the end result is that the actual accurate shot line is found and used, over and over and over.

 

[JB Cases]

I think they're simply memories of how they looked for previous successful similar shots, which your subconscious helpfully files and retrieves for you.

That's also the definition of aiming by feel - with enough practice it can seem effortlessly mechanical, but that just means you're good at it.

Embrace your skill!

pj
chgo

Been debunked years ago. You even cried to you tube because I mentioned your name while debunking this nonsense.

 

[BC21]

I read an interesting Harvard study about perception. It's called "Prevalence-induced Concept Change", or simply "The Blue Dot Experiment'.

Participants were askes to sit in front of a computer monitor and watch as a colored dot would appear on the screen and then disappear. Then another dot would appear and disappear. The dots were either blue or purple, and the participant would simple have to click one of two buttons labeled "Blue" or "Not Blue".

They saw 1000 dots like this, and half were blue. Participants did very well distinguishing the blue dots from the not blue dots (purple). But then, with each additional 1000 dots, the researchers made it so fewer and fewer dots were blue. Each participant began labeling purple dots as blue.

They repeated the experiment using threatening and unthreatening faces instead of blue or purple dots. The same thing happened. Then they used ethical and unethical proposals. Participants would have to read sentence and click the appropriate label. Same results again.

This psychological studied showed that people become conditioned and develop a tendency to see what they expect to see. That's pretty remarkable.

A good example is how we're living today. By just about every measure of quality of life, freedom, equality, etc... we are doing better than at any other time throughout history. Yet so many people focus on the few bad things and overlook all the good things. And, according to the "blue dot" theory, we tend to see things that were never considered "bad" as now being bad. Conditioning has gotten us accustomed to seeking out bad things to point at or complain about, even when some of these things have never been considered bad.

Anyway, I wonder if seeing the perceptions for CTE users is related to the blue dot effect, where the user becomes conditioned to see a particular visual perception in a particular way. And expecting to see this visual a certain way allows them to actually perceive it as they want, and therefore align their body and stroke according to what they perceive. Just a thought.

 

[mohrt]

I read an interesting Harvard study about perception. It's called "Prevalence-induced Concept Change", or simply "The Blue Dot Experiment'.

Participants were askes to sit in front of a computer monitor and watch as a colored dot would appear on the screen and then disappear. Then another dot would appear and disappear. The dots were either blue or purple, and the participant would simple have to click one of two buttons labeled "Blue" or "Not Blue".

They saw 1000 dots like this, and half were blue. Participants did very well distinguishing the blue dots from the not blue dots (purple). But then, with each additional 1000 dots, the researchers made it so fewer and fewer dots were blue. Each participant began labeling purple dots as blue.

They repeated the experiment using threatening and unthreatening faces instead of blue or purple dots. The same thing happened. Then they used ethical and unethical proposals. Participants would have to read sentence and click the appropriate label. Same results again.

This psychological studied showed that people become conditioned and develop a tendency to see what they expect to see. That's pretty remarkable.

A good example is how we're living today. By just about every measure of quality of life, freedom, equality, etc... we are doing better than at any other time throughout history. Yet so many people focus on the few bad things and overlook all the good things. And, according to the "blue dot" theory, we tend to see things that were never considered "bad" as now being bad. Conditioning has gotten us accustomed to seeking out bad things to point at or complain about, even when some of these things have never been considered bad.

Anyway, I wonder if seeing the perceptions for CTE users is related to the blue dot effect, where the user becomes conditioned to see a particular visual perception in a particular way. And expecting to see this visual a certain way allows them to actually perceive it as they want, and therefore align their body and stroke according to what they perceive. Just a thought.

This is an interactive animated GIF. It follows your eyes and puts a black dot on where you focus.

 

[BC21]

View attachment 596680
This is an interactive animated GIF. It follows your eyes and puts a black dot on where you focus.

Haha....the black dots are stationary, not moving to where I focus. In order to see a dot I have to look at where the dot is. There are 12 dots. Cool optical illusion though.

 

[Dan White]

I don't recall details around your non 2x1 table, but here are my ideas around that. When a CTE perception/pivot is performed on 2x1 table, or more specifically, a table where pockets are adjacent to each other to form perfect squares, most if not all of the CTE perception combinations (15I/R, 15I/L, etc) for a given CB/OB orientation will lead to a pocket. (once in awhile a NISL doesn't lead anywhere, within 4 rails at least). So when you chop off part of the table, some of the combinations that previously led to pockets will no longer work. Maybe some of them will still work, such as shots that do not involve the area of the table you altered. I don't know, I haven't tested it. But that would be my hypothesis. What you are assuming is if the table is altered any tiny bit, then nothing works anymore. I don't think any CTE users implied that, but I doubt anyone tested it either.

In my thread on the 2x1 table I put the word "explored" in the title. That suggests that the purpose of the thread is not to bash CTE users but to get a better understanding if exactly what is meant by CTE "working" BECAUSE the table is 2x1. One common reply I am seeing is that the 2x1 table refers to the idea that each all the perceptions for a given ball location will direct the ball to a pocket. OK, I understand the argument there. The bigger issue (inconsistency) I see and what I'm interested in is the "visual phenomena that wasn't meant to be" and not the part about banking balls into pockets. Like Stan shows on his kitchen counter, the "magic" of CTE is that you seem to do the exact same thing on two different shots and still pocket the ball. THAT is what Stan says "was never supposed to be" and THAT is able to happen BECAUSE the table is 2x1 in size. You, mohrt, thought that the rails had something to do with fooling your eye.

I believe my example in that thread shows this claim to be false. It's pretty much the same shot in this thread. Blocking off the half of the table that is not involved in the shot will not suddenly cause the "phenomena" to cease working. The other proof of this is the curtain shots.

So what, exactly, is it that makes CTE work for you guys? An objective observer would have to agree that it isn't the 2x1 size so maybe it is just the two rails that you see that meet at a pocket? Can't we better define what really matters here? As a side note, the other thing that always bothered me is how Hal used the diamonds to illustrate 15, 30 and 45 degree angles. So what? CTE does not make use of the diamonds so why do those angles matter? Stan put a diagram of this on the cover of his book so it must be important. I just don't know why.

Curtain shots are interesting. I'm pretty sure if you covered up the entire table and you had no rails in sight, nothing would work. But I have tested curtain shots covering 1/2 the table and have been pretty successful with it. My shot making percentages did go down with curtains, especially on tougher cuts, so having the whole table in view (ie. normal playing conditions) does help perception accuracy.

Stan does equally well with or without curtains. He does multiple rail banks with curtains all over the place. It is impossible for the 2x1 rails to influence the eye on such shots, so either something else is at play (rendering the 2x1 concept meaningless) or the shots are accomplished through memory.