Search results

I just kind of bank by feel. I'm not a great banker but not horrible, either. I've never really used this system but I wonder if it is accurate enough to get you closer than just feel. Your suggestion of finding the spot on the rail is interesting. I'll have to try it.

Do you mean look back at the OB and see where it needs to hit the rail?

You sure give the impression you use CTE PRO1 by giving examples out of his book and saying for 2 years that you could diagram it on CAD. If you use your own version of CTE you could have said so after the third or fourth time I pointed out that what you are doing bears little resemblance to...

You. Can't. Do. That. Period. If you do then it isn't CTE Pro1.

This violates the rules of CTE. You cannot pick any old spot on a rail and pick a perception to get you there. CTE only works at the corner and side pockets, supposedly. You have come up with something that works for you after substantial time on the table and you insist on calling it Stan's CTE.

Can you point out the difference between what you said and what I said? Aren't we both saying you are aiming at a point on a rail (as if there were a pocket there) using CTE and, furthermore, this is what Stan now instructs?

Isn't that basically EXACTLY what I said? You said you imagine a pocket at that spot and below you say that's what Stan does. Ask JB about that. lol sure.

You always make these claims but then you say you're too busy or can't be bothered to show proof. Why don't you take a picture of the section in Stan's book where he says you can imagine a pocket along the rail and use CTE to send the ball there? I know -- you don't feel like it.

Well like I said I don't think you are doing what Stan teaches but I'm not going to belabor the point.

He said in his first or second post that the book has you set up certain shots that you hit over and over again until they look right. In other words HAMB.

Stan has never illustrated that you can imagine a pocket along a rail and use CTE to get there. If he actually has then he has completely changed his teaching of CTE. Ask JB. This is different from supposedly making 2 and 3 rail shots using CTE. I'm going to leave well enough alone. I don't...

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.