I have been attempting to apply your analogy to the act/acts which are a part of aiming (or the act of figuring a good way to make the next ball and get position for the next two) so maybe I'm not getting what you are driving at yet. Help! Am I in the forest looking for trees?You're funny, boxcar. Distribution and use occurs after the appropriate amount of beer or whiskey has entered the body.
Actually, vision processing utilizes about 60% of the brain. The visual cortex alone has several departments at work, each performing a different task to help with processing visual data. After the processing finishes, the data gets sent to the rest of the brain where our conscious and subconscious can use it to make associations or learn new stuff.lol
A real CTE shot for you to try.
- Thread starter mohrt
- Start date
if you had watched the whole video you would have seen that some people subconciously dont use the vision of one eye and only see one string and one bead
it would be interesting to know if the one sting bead is on a line the seems to be alittle left to right or right to left
it would tell you which eye you are using
when you look at the cue ball your eyes have to converge more ...a type of "cross eye"
your eyes can never really "cross" because they cant look pupil to pupil
Last edited:
Does CTE work? Yes, then as described doesn't really matter. Does fire burn? Yes, the actual chemical composition of the fire doesn't matter as long as you know that you shouldn't stick your hand in it.
We only play on 2x1 playing fields with the pockets at fixed positions so that point doesn't matter. So no, I don't care because it works on the ONLY competitive playing field that is the same all over the planet. Shots directly to any point though MUST have a CTE aim because any point with lines emanating at 90 degrees to each other form a corner of a perfect rectangle.
I actually do not agree with Stan on the 2x1 thing and have told him so and he feels that he is right and yet it makes zero difference in our relationship and zero difference in my assessment of the value of CTE aiming to the user.
because they are now in a different position relative to the fixed target. The CTE line and the shot line are emanating from the cueball. No matter the shot the variance between the two lines as they exit from the back of the ball goes from about .003" or .01mm to .022" or .4mm. What does that mean or why would that information be of any use? It means that when the user sights the cte then they are never more than about a tiny fraction of an inch or mm away from the shot line. That's just step one. So with step two being selecting a perception the body position gets closer still to the unknown shot line which is already so very close to the CTE line from the user's perspective looking at the back of the cueball.
So what then is "different" with the balls parallel-shifted? the angle to the target of course but when it is said that the target doesn't matter then you all contend that the same input cannot produce a different outcome and the object ball MUST also travel a parallel line. But we know that the human mind is NOT a linear computer that strictly interprets code and so it is possible that the being so close to the unknown shot line is what allows the "same" input 15 degree perception inside sweep to work for a range of same distance shots along an axis. In other words the system gets the user crazy crazy close to the unknown shot line OBJECTIVELY and the teeny teeny tiny difference between the edge to abc lines is so small by that point that the user is simply on it by objectively and deliberately following the steps. Fact is that we don't know and we really don't care because it works. IF the brain is making some kind of "leap" to close the gap from linear input to abstract choice I submit that the "guess" that the subconscious makes at that last millisecond is ONLY possible because of the OBJECTIVE STEPS followed prior to that "shot line" appearance for the user. So if I am right the brain is informed and guided consistently by the objective CTE steps. It is those objective steps that make it work and not the subconscious taking credit for closing a teeny gap at the very end of the process. One would almost say WELL OF COURSE the brain can EASILY find the shot line once the user has consciously and objectively narrowed down the available choices to a tiny point.
Right, like the 2x1 claim it simply doesn't matter. Just like I don't need to care whether or not your system is based on the inscribed angle theorem or not. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but it doesn't matter at all IF it is because it works within the playing field consistently. Now, IF I have trouble picking out the starting point and thus am getting inconsistent results with your system does it invalidate the system? OF COURSE NOT. The system is valid regardless of the skill level of the operator and the results they get. A very experienced operator who has really mastered your system is going to get the best results possible.
The same applies to CTE or any other valid system. The input is actually biased based on the user's initial parameters and the users who reduce that bias and move towards mastery through practice and knowledge tend to speak the same language and act on that code consistently from user to user.
So whether or not the idea of 15/30/45 resolving to 90 degree corners is valid or not the overriding point is that it is immaterial to the problem that the system solves. As an example last night at the Pool Dojo the instructor was showing a diamond system to figure banks and kicks. I stepped up and nailed the bank shot using CTE instead of the also valid diamond system. With CTE I had no need to find the shot line through a diamond system but if I knew a diamond system I could certainly use it if I wanted to. I personally find those math-y type systems cumbersome and others gel to them instantly.
So bottom line, when the improvement is measurable and noticeable and my joy when playing is increased and my frustration decreased then you're absolutely right, I don't care about what protons and isotopes are doing on the quantum level.
I think you are wrong here. We are talking about physical results that are measurable and not invisible deities or abstract social concepts. This is about DELIBERATE and SUSTAINED attacks following some users being unable to satisfactorily respond to so-called scientific inquisition.
It just works is a perfectly acceptable answer when the questions are really not relevant to the information needed to USE the system.
Glad you're here being a fan. Stalkers are fans. The most loyal ones of all.....
I believe I missed the second shot because I did the same thing as in the first shot and got the same result. The question is how mohrt can do the same thing yet still pocket the ball on the second shot.
Sounds like HAMB.
Funny post of the day. "If the mods restricted opinions then we could have a more open discussion."
What did you put in Brian's drink down there in FL?
I recall that it is not a good idea to wear an eye patch if you are not doing it for a medical reason. Anybody thinking about playing around with an eye patch should do some research first.
If the opinions were based in fact then it would be a lot of fun
It's not only Mohrt getting that result, lots of people are. I believe your result was predetermined in your mind.
First off, you don't believe that the CTEL hits the ob in a slightly different spot, it does.
Second, because i believe your result was predetermined on the second shot because of your perceived relationship with the first shot, is the reason i suggested you just throw some balls out and shoot them the best you can just using what you know about CTE.
Just a couple thoughts, do what you want.
Protecting free speech means allowing the opinions you most disagree with, not just those you like. I suppose it is up to Herr cookie man to decide what is fact?
Understood. I would like to get a little deeper on this but as soon as I try you stick your fingers in your ears and shout Na Na Na Na! For instance: If I throw two balls on the table and aim for a half ball hit on every one I would expect to hit at the same place on the ob each time. If I now add another line and aim between the two you are now saying that the balls will no longer collide at the same spot for all shots... because of the shape of the table. Seems like a hard sell, to me. You won't discuss geometry so this is a dead end.
I don't want to discuss CTE with you at all really. I think because of your spat with Stan that you will never give it a fair shake. Just being honest.
But why or who said aim for a half ball hit? That's not how it works. GEOMETRY IN REGARDS TO CTE WILL NEVER BE PROVEN IMO. It is a visual system. You've been a dead end with CTE forever. Too many bad thoughts in your head to be able to open your mind and have success with it.
Please just discuss it with Mohrt.
You are right. But put yourself in my shoes. I use CTE on every shot for several hours a week for over 10 years. Why should I accept your keyboard opinion when i know for a fact it's wrong. I've been there and I'm still there. You present no facts other then you don't understand how to make 2 balls with it.
You must be a miserable person if you allow old arguments to guide you for so long. It seems you are projecting your own thoughts on to me.
You choose not to follow the logic I am throwing out there but rather resort to insults and garbage that has nothing to do with the discussion. Let's please just drop it so I can discuss with someone less emotional like mohrt.
I can appreciate what you are saying but apparently you cannot appreciate what I and others say. When I tell you the second shot goes long you assume I am doing it wrong simply because you can make it work. Maybe you are doing it wrong. Maybe there is a real reason you can make it work and I can't. As long as you have that defensive attitude nothing will change. I have accepted with mohrt that he is sincere and I'd like to follow up with him.
And, back to the point -- simply because some guy can't control himself on the forum does not mean you have to reply to every little thing.
So you still aren't bothered by your spat with Stan?
Your logic concerning CTE doesn't fit. I'm not saying it's not logical from behind a keyboard, but it certainly doesn't fit when it comes to CTE, sorry.