Search results

The thing that makes Poolology work is a set of circular arcs on the playing surface. Brian straightened those arcs out so that they are straight lines, like two legs of a box rather than an arc. That made the math simple and user friendly. It's still Poolology but if the robot can just use...

Is there one in every state?

I always thought there was a Springfield in all 50 states, or at least the continental ones.

Plus, it could use the actual arcs instead of the straight line approximations.

CTE didn't work for me when I followed the instructions exactly. It's not a lie. I think we're having two different conversations. I'm trying to understand why people are able to pocket balls using CTE (is it really objective or are they simply making it work) while you are saying it is...

I've discussed it more than once in this thread alone. I have tried CTE and when I do it exactly as described it doesn't work. Aside from that, let's go over it again without any hostility: Stan does not say CTE is objective because it uses edges and 3/4 ball "objective" reference points...

I keep telling you that your posts show a misunderstanding of what Stan says. You continue to have no interest in learning what I/others mean. You prefer to engage in a pissing contest.

Absolutely!

The bold part is another way of saying that you don't understand what CTE is supposed to be.

You are missing the key point. What does all of this fanageling have to do with the pocket?

Well actually you did say that. You said the CTE book shows you fractional hits that line up with the pocket. You hit those until you can recognize them. You are back peddling now. I've been trying to explain why fractional aiming isn't the issue, which you thought was and caused you to make...

I'm not confused about anything. You said that CTE works because it tells you to train the cb/ob/pocket relationship until the different fractions look "on." This has nothing to do with CTE. You are also right about the curtain drill. It's not that hard for anybody who already knows how to...

Even funnier is that there is an elegant double negative in this situation. Stan doesn't understand what he is teaching and Renegade doesn't understand Stan. In the end, Renegade is right about CTE and uses it successfully. Well done, Stan!

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but the bold part confirms that you have no idea what Stan's CTE is. What you are describing is HAMB, or "hit a million balls." By doing rote drills eventually you just "know" when the shot is on. Stan says that the pocket is irrelevant when using CTE and to...

Yesterday you didn't know what the 20-year-old argument was even about and today you have solved it. At least you didn't say "round barn."

The fractions are equally objective no matter what system you use. In Poolology that fraction is derived for you mathematically, which is objective. In CTE the fractions are also supposedly derived objectively but nobody seems to know how. According to you they are learned by rote practice...

So you are saying the foundation of CTE is having known 1/4 and 1/2 and 3/4 ball hits set up so you can practice them and get a feel for what they look like by rote? How is that any different from HAMB? That's because the math actually generates arcs. Brian had to smooth the arcs into...

All of the CTE skeptics would say that aiming at fractions on the ball is more or less objective because that is not what the issue is about, and it has nothing to do with personalities. Let me explain with the Poolology analogy. There is a mathematical relationship between the diamonds on...

Yes, the ball fractions you aim at are more or less objective but, again, that has nothing to do with the issue.

Respectfully, you don't seem to understand what the argument has been about for the last 25 years. It has nothing to do with the ball fractions.