Cte works without a straight stroke because cte is simply the aiming portion of a shot.
Same as every other aiming system that results in the identifying of the correct shot line.
First you aim. Then you shoot.
CTE automatically corrects stroke issues
- Thread starter sparkle84
- Start date
Same as every other aiming system that results in the identifying of the correct shot line.
First you aim. Then you shoot.
Says you? Inventors/creators are the first people who demonstrate their creations.
I don't know what world you live in but in this one the one offering something demonstrates it and users choose to give reviews and testimonials and demonstration voluntarily.
When something works then people talk about it. When it doesn't it most often fades from the market.
And when you cherry pick a range of shots to pump up a stat then you are not being honest. Was is 12 out of 14 or 15 out of the last 100 or 21 out of the last 400?
What was the context, what was the table? Was I being conversational or focused on shot making?
The point is that you don't give credit for success but you revel in failure. Doesn't matter how many successful shots are made you dismiss them as only possible because the shooter was already good. But if that shooter misses a shot then aha! The system doesn't work.
No one had settled for that. Hence the continuing study and refinement of the cte process.
You're right the practicality of creating fire IS the most important part. The practicality of making the shot is the most important part.
Lol. You can't get in a person's head but you can assign a feeling of regret based on a comment?
Oh really? Or maybe there are factors not being accounted for.
Yep because as we have seen bias absolutely taints the analysis when a person is absolutely certain of their ability to know what's true.
how bout the untold number that aim, shoot but can't make the QB hit where they aim on a consistent basis
you've displayed stroke issues in the past (iirc), if that has been resolved what % do you attribute to an aiming system and what % to other factors
You were a hundred ball runner playing 14-1 prior to cte, what is your high run since if you don't mind me asking
BTW, i tried cte without a coach and just don't get it....do you know of anyone in the mid-south who is capable of basic instruction
Well, first you identify what a person is aiming at and then when you know that the line is right you can then work on the stroke. Aiming is a step and executing is a step. It is possible to aim wrong and make a shot and it is possible to aim right and miss a shot.
Aiming is what directs the cue placement. Stroking is what directs the actual movement of the cue ball.
I don't mind you asking. My high run was never 100. I ran 98 once. I played 14.1 sporadically and my high run after learning objective aiming is 50. My total games of 14.1 in my life are less than 50 including tournaments.
There are a list of instructors at www.justcueit.com who can help you with cte.
What percentage of a shot is aiming and what is stroke? Is that the question?
I think that is very hard to quantify without some testing. First you have to know if a person aims correctly and what the margin of error is.
If we said that there was one perfect dead center aim line then to each side of that will be lines that are not perfect but work up to a distance where the line doesn't work. So a person can aim less than perfect and still make the shot with a straight stroke.
But what happens when they don't stroke straight? Well depending on the amount of throw they could make the ball anyway or throw it too far. I have done several videos that show this effect.
Thus there is no sense trying to break down the two processes of aiming and stroking into percentage of importance without data to inform those numbers.
Last edited:
Poolology is the only proven one I am aware of. The rest require experience.
Proven how? By demonstration from the creator?
Sorry that doesn't mean anything for the human activity of aiming one sphere into another sphere from a diagonal position above the plane.
Be real, nothing ends the "war" because the combatants enjoy the bloodshed.
Answer the question I asked you.
You basically said what I said. What matters is whether the student can do it, not the instructor.
I didn't cherry pick anything. It was 12 out of 14 in one of your more recent videos. It was a sharp cut into the side pocket. You hit that shot and one other one I think 14 times and missed 12. You were clearly embarrassed.
I just see what I see. Show me a new CTE user who can make or even come real close to two and three rail banks from random positions and I'll be impressed.
I can't be sure but that was my impression. Have you never been able to ascribe emotional states to people based on their speech and body language? I wouldn't call it regret. It was more like uncertainty and concern. Possibly a moment of weakness like all humans have.
Bias is a problem in science. It's like when you say you are positive that an experienced CTE player will pocket balls either way. You are prejudging the results and you have to check your opinion at the door if you want to do it right.
No. We've been over this before. You don't even need a pool table to prove that Poolology is geometrically correct.
Means nothing to you.
Jesus, you're helpless. The ellipse in the drawing can only be seen "from a diagonal position above the plane".
pj
chgo
No I meant that it cannot be seen on a solid sphere nor used to connect two solid spheres.
So shooting with poolology requires no estimation at all? No uncertainty on any shot?
Does Pat Johnson agree with you? I would like to hear straightline's comments since he/she/zi/zim/they..... think all one needs is the contact point.
I have the poolology book. I get it and as I have said repeatedly I find that it works but that I don't like the figuring aspect no matter how simple. For the same reason I don't ever really get comfortable with the kicking systems that require figuring. They are accurate and still not a comfortable way for me to play.
Aiming using CTE is a simple process that has clear steps and the result is that I get to the correct shot line consistently. I don't need to care of it is or isn't geometrically correct. Although I feel like it has to be because it works so well. But honestly there is zero reason to care because it solves my need on the table when I need to find the shot line.
If I follow the instructions in poolology and my need is solved then I don't need to care about why it works. I don't need to know about the inscribed angle theorem.
If I use the samba method and it solves my need then I don't need to care what the underlying mechanism is.
If I use ghost ball and it solves my need then I don't need the underlying formula that declares it to be true.
I don't know why this is so hard for the critics of cte to understand.
I don't need to know how an internal combustion engine works in order to drive a car. I need instruction on how to operate the controls and visual techniques to aim the car safely.
It isn't an ignorance is bliss thing but instead a conservation of energy thing. There is a task that I want to repeat dozens of times a day and any tool that assists me in successfully completing that task consistently is a welcome addition to my toolkit.
It is really that simple.
The overall math is correct. There are approximations built into the system to make it more user friendly. Of course you have to estimate what a fraction of a ball looks like like with anything else. The point is to build a memory bank of what shots look like when they are on so that you no longer need the math.
You guys are saying on the one hand that it is a professional system and never supposed to be and like cheating and so much better than anything else, your most recent qualifications notwithstanding. You can't on the one hand gloat about all the great aspects of the system and then turn around when pressed for proof and then say none of that matters only the end result does.
Conservation of energy would be taking a process that has 5 steps, learning that 3 of them are unnecessary, and keep the 2 that matter. Do all the pre-fire making rituals you want and then light the fire with the match. Just give me the match and keep the rest. Are you suggesting that mythology should be included in the method even if it doesn't do anything? If so, I've got two jelly beans you can have for $100.
The instructor/creator doing it is proof of concept. Others doing it is proof of practicality. You have this far neither accepted proof of concept nor proof of practicality.
An instructor who can consistently perform a technique is a constant. The students are variables. At no time in recorded history has every student equalled or even surpassed the instructor for any physical activity. That is a statistical impossibility due to the wide variation in cognitive ability, physical ability, motivation and opportunity.
Oh, ok then you also kept stats from the rest of the videos and can quote the make percentage for all the attempted shots?
Great because I haven't kept those and I would like to see the chart.
As for "embarrassed".... Yeah probably. But when I miss a shot then it indicates that I didn't do something right or there is some external factor. Either not aiming right, not stroking right, table not level, the shot has an incredibly small margin of error, or any combination of the above. Missing a shot fourteen times in a row would almost certainly indicate that my "subconscious adjustment brain computer" is not working at all.
I wonder though why you have never once given any credit to those who use cte and make all the shots they attempt in their videos?
I mean when you say that me missing is indicative of a non-working aiming system then why isn't it indicative of a working aiming system when another human successfully pockets 14 shots in a row?
That would be impressive. Is it only two and three railers that matter? How "new" for the CTE user? Ten minutes, ten days, two months, a year?
You can certainly infer emotional states but you can't know that you are correct. Especially when you are speaking of a single comment in a longer video that is itself part of a much larger body of work.
And, more importantly, even if you were correct and a person paused to question whether they have been going down the wrong path it doesn't mean that they have been on the wrong path.
We would want people to question themselves and test their own propositions. So even if you're correct in your assessment, which I doubt that you are, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Nah, am postulating the outcome based on prior knowledge. It isn't as if the process and the outcome are unknown to me.
Scientists hypothesize based on prior knowledge. Then they test their hypotheses and accept the results wherever they go. Ethical scientists at least. Humans are judgy, fearful, vain, insecure and emotional much more than they are rational thinkers. This applies to just about everyone except the most disciplined and enlightened. And I would submit that even the greatest thinkers have their hangups and irrational predjudices.
To me video offers the best way to show that all participants are starting with the same conditions with the results for each becoming a matter of public record. Even better when the tests are done live so that no results are omitted. Then the data is full public knowledge and can be tabulated using a variety of factors to see what trends are identifiable.
So my prediction might turn out to be wrong in which case my knowledge driven bias wouldn't matter.
That's the point I have made all along. Without actual testing using a format that is mutually agreeable it is impossible to believe that either side is open to having their minds changed.
That said, it doesn't mean that experiments cannot be created that satisfy the scientific method despite objection/rejection from critics. An objection to a method does not invalidate the method.
Of course one can celebrate successful results without giving any thought to whatever claims anyone made about the process that produced the results.
I don't have to believe in Santa Claus to experience the joy of giving and getting presents on a certain day that society uses for that purpose.
Pressed for proof? Of what? That a system was never meant to be? That's an opinion.
That it connects to the geometry of the table? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't but is that statement necessary to use the system?
I mean if someone sells me a fuel additive where they claim that the nano-particles caused by the excitement of the vibration creates more efficiency resulting in a clear increase in miles per gallon then for me the increase in miles per gallon part is the most interesting. That gets me looking at the product and my two criteria are will it harm my engine and does it work.
What else? Cte straightens the shot.... Whatever that means maybe it does. Again we come back to the fact that pool is a results based activity. You shoot until you miss. So when the frequency of missing is reduced satisfactorily for the shooter then that shooter doesn't care whether or not the process straightens the shot or not.
And, I imagine that this applies to poolology users as well, any method that produces greater confidence in the aim which in turn results in a measurable increase in pocketing does "feel like cheating" the emotional high that a player gets from mastering a new tool that produces solid results is overwhelming. That exhilaration also inspires the user to want to practice more and to compete more. Which is great for the sport.
Much better than anything else? Again this is an opinion in the absence of data that backs it up. I can say that in my opinion cte is better than anything else I have tried and that should never be taken as anything more than my anecdotal communication about it.
Professional system....I would ask in what context? What professionals use? Produces professional level aiming accuracy? But this falls into the marketing sphere in the same way of "never meant to be" in that it is simply not relevant to whether the system works or not. If one assumes that most professional players aim accurately for a high percentage of the shots they face then any system that leads the user to a similar level of aiming accuracy would be ok to describe as a professional system. Although I would give the reasoning that I just did if I chose to use that description.
Lastly I completely disagree about the point being to build a memory bank of shot pictures. I disagree with aiming system proponents on this as well. I think that having such a library to the extent that we could imagine such actually exists it should serve as a reference which can be double-checked through the objective aiming process. I think that entire point of having effective objective aiming methods is that one doesn't need to rely on having ever shot any particular shot in order to aim it correctly.
Sure, refinement of any working system through reduction of steps with no loss in accuracy of results is desirable.
That's exactly why we no longer do a fire dance before lighting the charcoal. However you have not been able to identify which steps in the cte process are unnecessary and you won't identify them as long as you have no data comparing the efficacy of various methods.
Because that is actually the most important criteria. Which methods produce the shot line accurately and consistently? And of those methods which is the easiest to learn and master on average?
One would be entirely correct to say that the learning curve for cte is currently steep. This isn't any sort of "magic bullet" like some critics attempt to claim that it is marketed as such. Despite the actual steps being pretty easy once understood learning those steps often requires a letting go of concepts that have been drilled into us by most pool books, such as the idea that aiming is a byproduct of a developing a straight stroke.
Aiming has traditionally been an underserved aspect of the sport. The assumption that everyone can aim accurately just because they have developed a straight stroke is not supported by any evidence. The idea that ghost ball is the only aiming method one needs if one needs an aiming system is equally unsupported. The claim that all aiming systems are just guessing and none are better than any other is also not proven. The idea that aiming cannot be objective is not correct. The idea that it is impossible for an aiming system user to aim, objectively is disproven by poolology because as you say, it works perfectly right or of the box.
So what's left?
Demonstrate the effectiveness of your jelly bean method by performing as good or better than Stan to pique my interest and I will give you $100 for your two jellybeans.
And then I will report back on my results of the Dan "Jelly Bean" White aiming method.
Means nothing to the aiming process.
Nothing that you have posted that I have seen has any practical value for the task of aiming in pool.
Following the facebook page has been getting more and more frustrating. Every day there seems to be some new imaginary yet not imaginary line im supposed to be paying attention to or some new epiphany i'm supposed to be having based on totally cryptic messages. Its honestly a headache and its exhausting.
I just want to miss less my dude.
I just want to miss less my dude.
Yo
That's what the top of the ellipse is for. You seem to be straddling the fraud line.