Search results

And yet everything I mention is in his videos and book. Go figure.

Not exactly, the point is to recognize the perception based on the object ball/cue ball relation to the pocket. It's not about hitting a million balls, although I'm probably pretty close to that over the last 50 or so years playing pool. The point is to learn to select the correct perception and...

Why is that?

Agreed

Well if set up correctly a snooker table will have a substantially smaller pocket opening between the bends than a pool table has between the pocket points. My snooker table had 3 3/8 in gap between the bends at the corners. I used American size snooker balls which are 2 1/8" diameter when...

Why not just put different cushions on that are the correct nose height?

I had a 10 foot victor snooker table years ago and I covered it with Simonis 860HR. It played very well and was plenty fast enough. It also was in a garage so it was subject the humidity at times here in eastern NC. I also at a point converted it to pool pockets by removing the cushions and...

I believe it didn't work for you. I don't believe you followed the process correctly. Sorry, just can't imagine you even know the correct process. Successfully pocketing is the ultimate pocketing. Would you believe it worked if I was missing all those shots? That's just not true at all. Stan...

Then no. It was a pretty simple question.

And immediately you begin with the same false statement, (it doesn't work). That is just a plain lie. If it didn't work you didn't do it right. I don't have a clue what a 3/4 ball reference point is and doubt seriously I referred to that, so I'm afraid you are misunderstanding something I said...

Is that allowed in APA?

And as such, your posts say absolutely nothing of context to that claim. Why not explain to me what I don't get. I mean, I've been civil about it, I'm not into name calling and such. I've seen people try to help you with executing the CTE and all I've seen from you, and others, is quitting and...

Funny as hell, again. You keep telling me I don't understand CTE, yet I keep using it, it keeps working. You have supposedly tried it to no degree of success, yet you understand it,,,,,,,,, really? Why don't you explain to me and others exactly what it is that we don't understand about it?

Actually in the past I said in this forum that it could actually be simulated mathematically and could even use cad to represent it, and I can, but I won't, because the people who call me out on it are too lazy to actually try the system I use, and just make excuses for not doing so. They would...

Tea no, I never said that, not part of my belief or even relevent to how and why CTE works. You are correct in that it has nothing to do with CTE. You keep trying to make some kind of mathematical point about fractions and angles when CTE relies on visuals, heavily. It wouldn't be that hard at all.

Stan is correct, Cte users rarely give the pocket more than an initial glance. I/m famiiliar with HAMB, maybe that confuses you in relation to CTE but I know the difference. I have personally done the curtain exercise myself, on a 5 x 10 snooker table with 3 3/16" corners and 2 1/4" Centennial...

I know for 20 years cte has not been objective for a select few, that think their opinions matter. They don't. it still just works. The reference was to the Mystery of why which fractional visual to use, one is done with some made up mathematical equation and the other is made up of actually...

Well you are confusing 2 distinctly different methods, one that pivots and one that sweeps.

No mystery about it, the aiming is just just from an offset position as opposed the straight down the cue, but it's always at the same offset. That is where the parallax reference comes into play. The mystery is now solved.

I merely point out that the very thing you say is objective for one system is not objective for the other, when Stan is associated with the other. The use of fractional ball visuals is either objective or it ain't, Which is it today?