A Few CTE Questions

[JB Cases]

Your improved play was likely a placebo, or the CTE instructions helped correct something you were doing wrong incidentally. Even Stan says you have to work at this for awhile (like months) before reaping the benefits (of course, not to miss an opportunity for self promotion, CTEers also say that some people can pick it up right away). Play on a 9' table and get back to us. Sadly, you'll most certainly come back down to earth soon enough.

You're wrong.

 

[JB Cases]

Stan and his followers believe that CTE is objective and requires NO understanding of when a shot "looks" on. In other words, there is no subjectivity in aiming when the CTE steps are learned and applied precisely. Generally speaking, shallow angle shots are "A" perceptions, larger angles near half ball hits are "B" perceptions and shots near 45 degrees are "C" perceptions. Stan often labeled these as 15, 30 and 45 degree perceptions as a quick way to reference them. CTE people think that all A shots can be pocketed with the exact same instructions and every shot will go CENTER POCKET until that perception doesn't work any more and you have to go to the B perceptions. So, to be clear, when you can't get a center pocket result with the A perception you can switch over to B and start getting that center pocket again. Inside and outside pivots make this possible, so that a 15 degree outside pivot is the same as a 30 degree inside pivot.

The above flies in the face of physics, geometry and plain common sense. You can't get different results unless you pivot differently or set up to the shot differently. But, not to have a closed mind, many of us were eager to understand how this could possibly work. The answer is a garbled, confused mish mash of terms like visual intelligence, stepping the cue ball, round barns and so on. The question cannot be answered because it doesn't really happen. What does happen, most likely, is that the player, over months and months of practice, finds a way to make the shots go even when they are lined up wrong. Some probably pivot different amounts depending on the shot (like mohrt in his videos) and others might simply set up a little different each time depending on the shot. In other words, and I've said this before, I think the more precisely you follow the CTE steps the worse your results will be because you will be getting the results you should get: Sometimes the balls will match up with the different perceptions and the ball will go in, and other times it won't. If you allow yourself a little breathing room, such as doing away with the rigid manual pivot in favor of more subjective methods like visual sweeps or stepping, then you will give your subconscious the ability to make the shot go.

You yourself have said many times that you "don't give a shit" how it works. It just does. Well, respectfully speaking, if you have that attitude then in my book you forfeit the right to have these kinds of discussions. The fact that it works for you is meaningless. That does not prove that the system is objective or that it works in any way close to what Stan says. It simply means that you shoot well with CTE as a pre-shot routine for whatever reason. Maybe it forces you to slow down or pay more attention or keeps you out of some other bad habit that lowers your pocketing percentage. Whatever it is, I'm quite sure that it isn't some phenomena that "was never meant to be" and that has never been identified in 20 years.

This is why I invented the jelly bean method "JBM" TRADEMARK (just kidding) to illustrate these fallacies. The method instructs you to put two jellybeans in your left pocket and tap on the pocket before you get into shooting position. You set up a series of 1/4 ball, 1/2 ball and full ball shots at various places on the table and then you put in some serious table time. Put in a minimum of 20 hours per week for 3 months and the JBM will have you shooting lights out. Just make sure you tap those jelly beans and, oh, one other thing. You MUST have a straight stroke in order for this to work. I contend that this method has improved my game immensely. It's like stealing. I don't really give a shit how the jelly beans are able to transfer their mojo to my cue but they do. The proof is that I play so much better using JBM. It has nothing to do with the fact that I put in many hours of structured practice. It all has to do with the jelly bean mojo even though I don't care what that is.

Do you understand the argument now?

Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean you know how it works. I offered many experiments to test your claims and all have been declined.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Forget forums. It would have gone viral in pool halls. Word of mouth about something that really works is the most powerful form of advertising.

What planet are you living on? How could it get into the pool halls when it was only discussed on the internet in pool forums.
The real die hard guys in pool halls didn't go on forums back then.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Whoa, Nellie. Stop the presses. Are you telling me that basic manual pivoting CTE, which is the one I have used the most and is supposed to be dead nuts accurate does NOT require a pivot on every shot?

I have no idea what you use in the way of CTE nor do I know that you even know what the hell you're doing. Hal's CTE definitely had a pivot but he DID NOT have two visuals as there is with CTE PRO1 that Stan developed.

Well, since you phrase the question that way... I'm not trying to bring anything down. I post on this topic OCCASIONALLY when one of you guys acts up. I find it interesting. It's more a study of the psychology behind mass hypnosis then anything else. It's nothing personal.


Nope. Not every day, just for a couple of days back and forth with YOU SAME GUYS and then off air for much longer periods of time. Stan helped the discussion along by selling new products every few years. So it was never actually the same old thing all the time. CTE evolved from a manual pivot to looking for the NISL out of the corner of your eye. Certainly not a static topic.


I have a suggestion. If you don't like it then don't respond and it will stop. I got tired of your antics a couple of years ago and don't think I responded to anything from you for a long time. More recently I realize that you're actually an OK guy with a flamboyant vocabulary so I don't mind your input so much. Much nicer guy in pm, as I think we both are, lol.

This I would agree with.

Having said that, it is clear you are never going to change you mind or be open to any possibilities other than it does exactly what you say it does. It took me a long time to realize that I had a cue alignment problem. For years prior to that I was convinced everything was just fine. Maybe something to consider. I mean, in your case, your shooting I guess is just fine. Your understanding of what you are doing may not be.

Nope! My UNDERSTANDING of WHAT I'm doing is EXACTLY the reason why my shooting is better than ever.

 

[Renegade_56]

Let's say Dave shoots every shot perfectly...OK?.... There's nothing to criticize or note about his shooting...OK?... This does not mean he is aiming objectively the way CTE instructions tell him to...OK?...

There is also nothing that says he isn't, except you and your minions,,,,,

We can't get inside his head to see whether he really is lining up his shot the same way for one A perception vs another A perception...REPEAT... We can't get inside his head to see whether he really is lining up his shot the same way for one A perception vs another A perception...OK?

And yet, you continue to say he isn't on a daily basis, based on nothing.

Even if he IS lining up the same every time, we also can't tell if he is pivoting more or less as needed depending on where the pocket is...OK?

Well certainly he is, that is how you make the perceived angle shoot thicker or thinner, but he doesn't have to look at the pocket to do so, how much he pivots or sweeps is determined well before he addresses the shot, any adjustment you see after a certain point is simply aiming at the exact hit he wants on the cue ball.

This would be an instance of relying more on past knowledge than CTE...OK?

Except every shot is different, so the last shot, or the last 100 shots, don't help make the next one.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[cookie man]

I

It's actually funny how much you project your own feelings onto me. You say that I twist words out of their intended meaning yet you are the one doing exactly that. Let me repeat it just for you, slowly.... Let's say Dave shoots every shot perfectly...OK?.... There's nothing to criticize or note about his shooting...OK?... This does not mean he is aiming objectively the way CTE instructions tell him to...OK?...We can't get inside his head to see whether he really is lining up his shot the same way for one A perception vs another A perception...REPEAT... We can't get inside his head to see whether he really is lining up his shot the same way for one A perception vs another A perception...OK?... Even if he IS lining up the same every time, we also can't tell if he is pivoting more or less as needed depending on where the pocket is...OK?...This would be an instance of relying more on past knowledge than CTE...OK? I could expand on this last point more but something tells me I've already lost you. Now read this 3 more times before replying.

Thanks.

f you put a whole bag of jelly beans in your pocket you might start to understand the whole process

 

[cookie man]

Nope. Don't have it and so never read it. My facebook mole does all that for me.

So why keep bringing it up. That’s right. You have no clue but just like to keep posting your guesses hoping one day you might get something right

 

[cookie man]

Whoa, Nellie. Stop the presses. Are you telling me that basic manual pivoting CTE, which is the one I have used the most and is supposed to be dead nuts accurate does NOT require a pivot on every shot?


Well, since you phrase the question that way... I'm not trying to bring anything down. I post on this topic OCCASIONALLY when one of you guys acts up. I find it interesting. It's more a study of the psychology behind mass hypnosis then anything else. It's nothing personal.


Nope. Not every day, just for a couple of days back and forth with YOU SAME GUYS and then off air for much longer periods of time. Stan helped the discussion along by selling new products every few years. So it was never actually the same old thing all the time. CTE evolved from a manual pivot to looking for the NISL out of the corner of your eye. Certainly not a static topic.


I have a suggestion. If you don't like it then don't respond and it will stop. I got tired of your antics a couple of years ago and don't think I responded to anything from you for a long time. More recently I realize that you're actually an OK guy with a flamboyant vocabulary so I don't mind your input so much. Much nicer guy in pm, as I think we both are, lol. Having said that, it is clear you are never going to change you mind or be open to any possibilities other than it does exactly what you say it does. It took me a long time to realize that I had a cue alignment problem. For years prior to that I was convinced everything was just fine. Maybe something to consider. I mean, in your case, your shooting I guess is just fine. Your understanding of what you are doing may not be.

You post occasionally lmao. Yea right.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...every shot is different, so the last shot, or the last 100 shots, don't help make the next one.

So we've been wasting our time with all this practice? Damn!

pj <- now he tells me
chgo

 

[boogieman]

I

f you put a whole bag of jelly beans in your pocket you might start to understand the whole process

The jelly beans could be a real lifesaver if your blood sugar gets too low, so it has some merits!

 

[boogieman]

Why are you doing this? you are giving the assholes ammo when you know as well as anyone else that no amount of drawings will satisify them.

I can give you the formula that governs GB and tell you with 100% certainty that no pool player living uses it. CTE could be modeled in 3d space and still the assholes on here would denigrate it.

Why do you care if one can model it using CAD or any other graphics program? Does that matter in the practical application AT ALL?

It doesn't but when people make claims that can't be backed up I like to watch them squirm. I know how CTE works and you might get close explaining it with a VR headset, but CAD... not gonna happen without leaving something up to the imagination.

The system works, it really does, but making false claims is no different than denigrating CTE without understanding it.

 

[Renegade_56]

It doesn't but when people make claims that can't be backed up I like to watch them squirm. I know how CTE works and you might get close explaining it with a VR headset, but CAD... not gonna happen without leaving something up to the imagination.

The system works, it really does, but making false claims is no different than denigrating CTE without understanding it.

Any shot in CTE could certainly be layed out in cad, as easily as drawing a few straight lines representing the balls to the pocket, overlayed with a series of simple 3d lines representing with defined end points and defining the location of the vision center that comprehends them all at the same time. The misrepresentation all along was someone saying I said I could model CTE, I never did, but I could easily illustrate an example of a shot solution based on why CTE works. It's very simple. It's also completely useless, as it would be impossible to replicate from one shot to the next because the possibilities are infinite. You have no idea what my skills are with modeling and cad, and manufacturing and machining for that matter yet you run your mouth like you know everything. I have 46 years of experience to back up my claims. What do you have?

 

[Renegade_56]

So we've been wasting our time with all this practice? Damn!

pj <- now he tells me
chgo

when you don't have anything meaningful to say, say something stupid,,,,,,,,,,,,, what practice? There is only one contact point, you still trying to find it?

 

[Thresh]

The misrepresentation all along was someone saying I said I could model CTE, I never did

I can actually prove CTE works with CAD, can you prove it doesn't?

Post in thread 'CTE Stepping Cue Ball.' https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/cte-stepping-cue-ball.534686/post-7147800



Dan White said:
You said, among other things, that you could prove that CTE works with your CAD program. CAD is based on math.

I also asked you to prove the math and you declined, saying I wasn't worth it.

Renegade_56 said:
I didn't actually; selective reading on your part, yet again.

Renegade_56 said:
Tell you what, I can actually prove CTE works with CAD, can you prove it doesn't?

Dan White Said:
Before you say you weren't referring to the CAD program, you also said you can prove CTE with math:

Renegade_56 said:
Proving why the CTE method by applying a visual reference from a third angle projection to a 2 dimensional angle is really not that difficult.

It's just math and pretty much anything can be proven to either work or not with math.

Post in thread 'CTE Stepping Cue Ball.' https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/cte-stepping-cue-ball.534686/post-7149368

 

[Renegade_56]

Post in thread 'CTE Stepping Cue Ball.' https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/cte-stepping-cue-ball.534686/post-7147800



Dan White said:
You said, among other things, that you could prove that CTE works with your CAD program. CAD is based on math.

I also asked you to prove the math and you declined, saying I wasn't worth it.

Renegade_56 said:
I didn't actually; selective reading on your part, yet again.

Renegade_56 said:
Tell you what, I can actually prove CTE works with CAD, can you prove it doesn't?

Dan White Said:
Before you say you weren't referring to the CAD program, you also said you can prove CTE with math:

Renegade_56 said:
Proving why the CTE method by applying a visual reference from a third angle projection to a 2 dimensional angle is really not that difficult.

It's just math and pretty much anything can be proven to either work or not with math.

Post in thread 'CTE Stepping Cue Ball.' https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/cte-stepping-cue-ball.534686/post-7149368

Couldn't resist, and I know you miss me. It just occurred to me you have no idea what CAD actually is? In the post #192 you are quoting from (great computer skills btw), I described very simply how basically 6 very simple 3d lines could depict how a given CTE shot was solved. Any CTE shot could be defined with the exact same process, and every one of them would be completely useless because no 2 would ever be the same. I doubt seriously that you can even understand that and I'm starting to think you have been lurking around hoping I would post some little animated cartoon characters shooting pool or something, (which is not cad btw, that is solid modeling with annimation). Gonna turn you back off now so you can lurk some more.

 

[Thresh]

Couldn't resist, and I know you miss me. It just occurred to me you have no idea what CAD actually is? In the post #192 you are quoting from (great computer skills btw), I described very simply how basically 6 very simple 3d lines could depict how a given CTE shot was solved. Any CTE shot could be defined with the exact same process, and every one of them would be completely useless because no 2 would ever be the same. I doubt seriously that you can even understand that and I'm starting to think you have been lurking around hoping I would post some little animated cartoon characters shooting pool or something, (which is not cad btw, that is solid modeling with annimation). Gonna turn you back off now so you can lurk some more.

You said you can prove CTE works with CAD.

Stop being a coward and do it.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

You know how to find out if CTE is real or black sheep aiming system?

Practice CTE System if ball go into pockets, it works.

 

[Casting 9s]

You know how to find out if CTE is real or black sheep aiming system?

Practice CTE System if ball go into pockets, it works.

As simple as that sounds, it’s partially correct. Think about it… if people learned it, and tried it, and they weren’t pocketing balls better and more consistently, why would they ever continue to use it?

People get all hung up on the phrase “aiming system”, but all an aiming system really is, is a baseline of reference points. EVERYONE has some kind of reference point when they first look at a shot; whether it’s “feel” (a subconscious recollection of hitting shots very similar to the one in front of them thousands of times before), or an A/B/C point, or a fractional aiming spot, or whatever other thing that people have come up with.

There IS a shot line that pockets the ball, and whether you’re using CTE, TOI, or stroking jelly beans in your jeans to find that line, all that matters is that you find it. I’ve heard Johnny Archer, SVB, Bustamante, CJ Wiley, and many others all say they use aiming systems. All are just baselines for referencing. Some people act like it involves black helicopters and tinfoil hats or something.

If CTE absolutely did not work, people wouldn’t back down from playing people who use it. And people who use it, wouldn’t still be using it.

 

[Renegade_56]

You said you can prove CTE works with CAD.

Stop being a coward and do it.

I explained it in 192, then I explained why you wouldn't understand it anyway, and I was right both times. Go back to sleep.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Well CTE is one of many systems to aim. If you can not shoot a Cue Ball in a straight line CTE will not work.

It is like trying to shoot a Glock 17 at 25 yards, with poor trigger squeeze, and wobbly stance.

You might not even hit the target frame until you master fundamentals of pistol shooting.

So the Glock should give good result in hand of competent marksman