A real CTE shot for you to try.

[Dan White]

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.

Help me out then. I can make the center ball shot work using only the CTE steps so my eyes must be doing something right. I don't even look at the ob. The second shot does not work because I am looking at the same references as in the first shot. The ball goes in the same direction and of course hits the short rail. How can I get it right on the first one but not the second? I believe you are looking at the ob while finalizing your aim, right?

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

That will be interesting to see.

 

[Dan White]

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.

mohrt's position, and I believe Stan's, is that CTE works BECAUSE OF the 2x1 dimensions and something about the rails, and not just the whole idea of banking into all 6 pockets. Let's say the banking stuff is true for the moment and consider the other, more important part. Stan says that the shots in this thread (30 degree inside up and down the center line of the table) only work (the mystery) because of the 2x1 table. Curtain shots alone show this not to be true. Also see my other comments to mohrt on this.

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"

Good, let's stick to substance and figuring out what 2x1 really means and what is really relevant to the "mystery."

 

[cookie man]

mohrt's position, and I believe Stan's, is that CTE works BECAUSE OF the 2x1 dimensions and something about the rails, and not just the whole idea of banking into all 6 pockets. Let's say the banking stuff is true for the moment and consider the other, more important part. Stan says that the shots in this thread (30 degree inside up and down the center line of the table) only work (the mystery) because of the 2x1 table. Curtain shots alone show this not to be true. Also see my other comments to mohrt on this.


Good, let's stick to substance and figuring out what 2x1 really means and what is really relevant to the "mystery."

Mohrt said,
"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."


Seems to be pretty much what I said. You are just trying to twist it.

Yes, Stan said CTE works BECAUSE of the 2x1 dimension. It WORKS AS A TOTAL SYSTEM BECAUSE OF THAT. CTE doesn't work as a total system on a chopped off table, as i stated earlier. It can work as a partial system though on a chopped off table. I did the shots. You want to question the results then post something worthwhile to prove me wrong.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Been debunked years ago.

If by "debunked" you mean "denied loudly (and baselessly) for decades by followers of a mystical aiming system from another dimension that was never supposed to be".

lol

You even cried to you tube because I mentioned your name

Bet you get a lot of that - can't imagine anyone wanting their name associated with your nonsense.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

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.

... and Harmonica Low Joe calls ME a hater?

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.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time that this has been mentioned. So you are saying the 2x1 table is not what matters for non banked shots -- it is having two rails at a 90 degree angle that matters? Do the rails themselves matter because mohrt seems to think the rails are what make the phenomena work? I'm looking for a complete and detailed explanation of why the 2x1 dimensions keep coming up as THE THING that makes it all work. I should repeat that for purposes of that conversation I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying the 2x1 concept doesn't hold up to scrutiny so can we figure out what is really meant by 2x1.

It also occurs to me that this is the wrong thread for that conversation. I will try to reply in that other thread from now on.

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.

Subconscious adjustment is the only logical explanation some of us can come up with. Maybe it is wrong and something else is happening. This thread is an opportunity to learn more about the new CTE in practice (for myself) since mohrt has taken an interest in sticking with the conversation.

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.

Yes, I have also been performing the steps to a tee and am pocketing the center ball 30 inside shot pretty consistently without looking at the ob. But then it doesn't work when I move the balls forward one diamond. You look at ob last, right? Why? It seems from my practice that once I have the NISL the last thing I want to do is go looking at the ob and risk losing the exact NISL as determined at the cb.

 

[cookie man]

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.

OR, the 2x1 table has EVERYTHING to do with it. I explained earlier 3 multi rail banks using one ball location and just working through the CTE perceptions. That would not happen on a chopped off table.

 

[Dan White]

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.

Very interesting. I've used the blue dress/white dress example in the past. You remember that one? Some swear it was white while others saw it as blue.

 

[cookie man]

Yes, I have also been performing the steps to a tee and am pocketing the center ball 30 inside shot pretty consistently without looking at the ob. But then it doesn't work when I move the balls forward one diamond. You look at ob last, right? Why? It seems from my practice that once I have the NISL the last thing I want to do is go looking at the ob and risk losing the exact NISL as determined at the cb.

Suggestion. Do not shoot the 30 inside as you start to practice CTE. I think what's happening, lol see what i did there, is the YOUR subconscious is not letting you shoot it as a CTE shot but instead you are adjusting and just shooting a half ball hit. Shoot random shots and work through the different visuals.

 

[Dan White]

Mohrt said,
"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."


Seems to be pretty much what I said. You are just trying to twist it.

Yes, Stan said CTE works BECAUSE of the 2x1 dimension. It WORKS AS A TOTAL SYSTEM BECAUSE OF THAT. CTE doesn't work as a total system on a chopped off table, as i stated earlier. It can work as a partial system though on a chopped off table. I did the shots. You want to question the results then post something worthwhile to prove me wrong.

The operative sentence above from mohrt is "I don't know."

Maybe I'll have to go back and find an example where Stan talks about the 2x1 table. Is he really saying 2x1 only matters on banked shots? If so then that's fine. We would have learned something. I do recall the kitchen table set up where Stan demonstrates pivoting to the shot line and getting different outcome angles. He then said, "Of course this is not a 2x1 surface." Does that mean the phenomena works on the kitchen table but you just won't be pocketing balls because of the non 2x1 dimensions? It creates ambiguity for anyone who REALLY wants to get to the bottom of it. You seem to be saying that 2x1 does not matter for non banked shots, right? It is not a trick question.

 

[Dan White]

OR, the 2x1 table has EVERYTHING to do with it. I explained earlier 3 multi rail banks using one ball location and just working through the CTE perceptions. That would not happen on a chopped off table.

You are saying that the geometry of the 2x1 table is making it work while everybody else is saying that the mystery perceptions caused by seeing the 2x1 surface/rails is what causes it. If you can't see the rails or the 2x1 dimension then why are the shots still going in? Memory? A simple geometric relationship as you imply? If that is it then we should be able to diagram it, which you guys all say is impossible.

 

[Dan White]

Suggestion. Do not shoot the 30 inside as you start to practice CTE. I think what's happening, lol see what i did there, is the YOUR subconscious is not letting you shoot it as a CTE shot but instead you are adjusting and just shooting a half ball hit. Shoot random shots and work through the different visuals.

Maybe. I did try other shots, like other 30 insides that did not match up with the pocket. No bueno. FWIW, I am not aligning to a half ball hit. I am doing what mohrt suggests and I don't even look at the ob after getting the AL and SL, which are like 1/2 ball hits but with the vision off to the side. Acquiring the NISL brings the cue under my vision and the tip to ccb. That seems to end up pretty close to a 1/2 ball hit but I wouldn't know it because I'm not looking at the ob. I could try other perceptions now that I have the averted head idea down.

 

[mohrt]

Maybe. I did try other shots, like other 30 insides that did not match up with the pocket. No bueno. FWIW, I am not aligning to a half ball hit. I am doing what mohrt suggests and I don't even look at the ob after getting the AL and SL, which are like 1/2 ball hits but with the vision off to the side. Acquiring the NISL brings the cue under my vision and the tip to ccb. That seems to end up pretty close to a 1/2 ball hit but I wouldn't know it because I'm not looking at the ob. I could try other perceptions now that I have the averted head idea down.

Just FYI Stan makes a training ball that accompanies the book. So we are not working with made up adjustments for the AL and SL. They are hard lines on the OB when using the trainer.

 

[cookie man]

The operative sentence above from mohrt is "I don't know."

Maybe I'll have to go back and find an example where Stan talks about the 2x1 table. Is he really saying 2x1 only matters on banked shots? If so then that's fine. We would have learned something. I do recall the kitchen table set up where Stan demonstrates pivoting to the shot line and getting different outcome angles. He then said, "Of course this is not a 2x1 surface." Does that mean the phenomena works on the kitchen table but you just won't be pocketing balls because of the non 2x1 dimensions? It creates ambiguity for anyone who REALLY wants to get to the bottom of it. You seem to be saying that 2x1 does not matter for non banked shots, right? It is not a trick question.

No No No . Mohrt said some of the CTE combinations will no longer work on a chopped off table just like I said.

 

[cookie man]

You are saying that the geometry of the 2x1 table is making it work while everybody else is saying that the mystery perceptions caused by seeing the 2x1 surface/rails is what causes it. If you can't see the rails or the 2x1 dimension then why are the shots still going in? Memory? A simple geometric relationship as you imply? If that is it then we should be able to diagram it, which you guys all say is impossible.

I never mentioned geometry at all. And when did i say i can't see the rails? You can always see rails, even on the curtain shots.

 

[cookie man]

Maybe. I did try other shots, like other 30 insides that did not match up with the pocket. No bueno. FWIW, I am not aligning to a half ball hit. I am doing what mohrt suggests and I don't even look at the ob after getting the AL and SL, which are like 1/2 ball hits but with the vision off to the side. Acquiring the NISL brings the cue under my vision and the tip to ccb. That seems to end up pretty close to a 1/2 ball hit but I wouldn't know it because I'm not looking at the ob. I could try other perceptions now that I have the averted head idea down.

So you absolutely would have no subconscious adjustment for what you call a known half ball hit but that's all we do is make subconscious adjustments, lmao. You are quite the character.

 

[JB Cases]

If by "debunked" you mean "denied loudly (and baselessly) for decades by followers of a mystical aiming system from another dimension that was never supposed to be".

lol


Bet you get a lot of that - can't imagine anyone wanting their name associated with your nonsense.

pj
chgo

Nah, you were the only one.

 

[JB Cases]

You are saying that the geometry of the 2x1 table is making it work while everybody else is saying that the mystery perceptions caused by seeing the 2x1 surface/rails is what causes it. If you can't see the rails or the 2x1 dimension then why are the shots still going in? Memory? A simple geometric relationship as you imply? If that is it then we should be able to diagram it, which you guys all say is impossible.

There are no mystery perceptions. I haven't seen anyone claiming that a 2:1 ratio is why cte works.

 

[Dan White]

No No No . Mohrt said some of the CTE combinations will no longer work on a chopped off table just like I said.

Now I am confused. Forget bank shots. Will non banked shots work on only 2x1 tables or on any size table as long as there is a pocket at the corner?

 

[Dan White]

I never mentioned geometry at all. And when did i say i can't see the rails? You can always see rails, even on the curtain shots.

The only rails visible on one of Stan's bank videos is the rail underneath him and maybe the near corner of the table. Making those bank shots suggests either 1) a geometric relationship between the ball alignment and the pockets, 2) success based on experience at banks or HAMB, or 3) the mysterious phenomena does not actually require you to see the rails you are shooting towards.

 

[Dan White]

So you absolutely would have no subconscious adjustment for what you call a known half ball hit but that's all we do is make subconscious adjustments, lmao. You are quite the character.

If that happened it would be at the point where I acquire the AL and SL. However, when I do this I keep the shaft out of the way and off the table. Next, I look at the inner edge of the cb and let my peripheral vision find ccb. I then place the cue at this point with the tip at that ccb and the shaft going under my vision. I do not look back at the ob because I do not want to lose the NISL that I just found.

Why do you look at ob last and why does Stan look back and forth between cb and ob twice before shooting? Don't you risk losing the NISL possibly? What is the purpose of looking at the ob?