More exciting CTE facts and information

BC21 said:

For a normal rolling cb, no stun, the numbers used in Poolology account for typical throw. Of course, this is subjective based on ball/table conditions. With clean equipment, the aim points provided by the system work very well with a rolling cb. Any spin or stun is to be handled in accordance with learned experience, which is subjective.

I agree that the exact position value of the ob, as well as the rail/alignment values, rely on individual interpretation, not purely objective, but not guesswork either.

So how can a target be determined objectively? I suppose a straight in shot within a couple of feet from a pocket can be determined objectively, meaning 10 out of 10 players can simply look at the shot and know 100% that center ob is the target. Unfortunately, striking the cb correctly to put it on the target is not objective.

Click to expand...

Okay, we are more on the same page as I thought that we were.

As for the straight in shot... as seen by whom? We have pocket slop.

As PJ said, Human Vision itself is a subjective thing. My vision has gone through some changes & is probably still in the process of changing. I can place the stick down on the table corner to corner with the CB & an OB straight into a corner pocket. While standing tall & looking at it from above I am left eye dominant & will see it as straight, but if I bend down & look down the length of the stick it will then not look straight & vise versa. If I set it straight while down & then get up & look at it then it will not look straight.

I do not think we as human beings have "objective" vision.

Now that said we "know" that if a shot IS straight & the stick is placed on the line through the centers of the ball & moved on that line to strike the CB in the center so the it hits the center of the OB on that line it will move along that straight line into the center of the pocket. That is Objective KNOWLEDGE. We have similar Objective Knowledge for Cut shots but not so easily described.

I hope you can understand what I have said here.

Also a straight in shot does NOT have CIT to be dealt with regardless of speed. Per your statement about Poolology accounting for throw for a rolling CB, how so? How would the Geometry do that?

Perhaps I am going too deep into this, but I do not see the Natural Laws of Physics being taken into account by a geometric system. Math is what man has devised to try to explain the Natural Laws of Physics.

I will concede that at a rolling ball speed the CIT may not be enough to throw the ball out of the pocket but should certainly throw it off of the center line.

When you spoke, were you referring to Poolology with the arcs or after the straight line conversions?

Thanks Much for the 'conversational' discussion. I am NOT trying to find fault with Poolology. It is just that your statement that it accounts for normal CIT sounds familiar, if you know what I mean.

Best Wishes,
RJ

ENGLISH! said:

.......

I will concede that at a rolling ball speed the CIT may not be enough to throw the ball out of the pocket but should certainly throw it off of the center line.

When you spoke, were you referring to Poolology with the arcs or after the straight line conversions?

Thanks Much for the 'conversational' discussion. I am NOT trying to find fault with Poolology. It is just that your statement that it accounts for normal CIT sounds familiar, if you know what I mean.

Best Wishes,
RJ

Click to expand...

This objective/subjective topic would make a great new thread and get us out of this one. Here's a good question: If we labeled the diamonds 10, 20, 30, etc..., and asked 100 players to place a piece of chalk on the rail at a value of...say 28, and each would be done individually/privately so that no one could be influenced by another person's estimation of 28, how many exact placements would be needed for us to consider this an objective task? 90 out of 100? 99? 100? Just curious.

Regarding Poolology, the arcs targeted centered pocket very accurately, accounting for normal CIT and appropriate margin of error. It did this by using values based on a 28° shot angle for a halfball, instead of 30, and 43° for a quarter ball, instead of 48.6. The change in perspective (from ccb to center ob, compared to ccb to the actual ob aim point) adds about a 2° overcut for what the system says is a halfball shot, and it adds about 5° for the quarter ball shot. So when the system indicates a 1/2 ball shot is needed, the ball is being cut 30° to one side of the pocket or the other, and CIT pushes it closer to the center. And of course distance between the cb and ob affects this overcut a little, but between 2 and 5 feet it's very minimal.

Anyway, making the system more user friendly with straight lines incorporated the use of the entire pocket, which naturally affected the precision/accuracy, but mainly just where the lines meet between the zones. Otherwise the straight line, using 20 for example, is still the sweet spot for center pocket targeting. As the ob placement on the 20 line gets closer to the rail or closer to crossing into another zone, the targeted spot shifts from center pocket to left or right of center, utilizing the entire pocket. Instead of using a 28° cb-ob relationship, the initial "halfball" angle (as defined by the system) could be as small as 26°, or as large as 30°. Accounting for expected CIT, and the angling of the cue to the shot line, this makes the ob go in a little thicker, or thinner, depending on a left or right cut.

I'll get fried for talking so much about Poolology in a CTE thread, and rightly so. So I'm finished here.

BC21 said:

If we labeled the diamonds 10, 20, 30, etc..., and asked 100 players to place a piece of chalk on the rail at a value of...say 28, and each would be done individually/privately so that no one could be influenced by another person's estimation of 28, how many exact placements would be needed for us to consider this an objective task? 90 out of 100? 99? 100? Just curious.

Click to expand...

Wouldn’t matter if nobody ever missed - there are no degrees of objectivity; it’s subjective by definition.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

Wouldn’t matter if nobody ever missed - there are no degrees of objectivity; it’s subjective by definition.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

I understand, simply because it requires a person to use individual judgment/opinion. The diamonds themselves would be the only objective values.

BC21 said:

I understand, simply because it requires a person to use individual judgment/opinion. The diamonds themselves would be the only objective values.

Click to expand...

Brian,

PJ said it clearly & I think You, I, Others agree. I should have made a definitive statement instead of probing to see what you think.

I see 'loose talk' as part of the problem. Words have meanings & specific definitions. Once things 'go loose' truthful communication gets lost.

The subject matter was not Poolology. You just took it there as an example because you are so familiar with it. There is nothing wrong with that. Threads often venture off as one thing leads to another for clarification purposes.

ALL Best Wishes,
RJ

QUOTE=Patrick Johnson;6414166]Wouldn’t matter if nobody ever missed - there are no degrees of objectivity; it’s subjective by definition.

pj
chgo[/QUOTE]

ROTFLMAO! There is no longer a need for the MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY now that the PAT JOHNSON DICTIONARY has been written.

The ALL KNOWING LORD has spoken. ROTFLMAO harder by the second.

(can't wait for the celebrated snarky wise guy put-down by Johnson to put me in my place)

Please explain what the multiple definitions of "IS" IS according to Johnson and Clinton.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

BC21 said:

I understand, simply because it requires a person to use individual judgment/opinion. The diamonds themselves would be the only objective values.

Click to expand...

Brian, quit being a wimp and acquiescing to them on every little thing because you're afraid to be cast off from the inner circle of what you perceive as the all knowing "in crowd".

They're disparaging your system also and you stand there like a scared stammering little kid with tears about to run down your face because of the big bad bullies amping up volume and pressure.

Now go ahead and tell me that's not what's happening and they're right. It'll prove exactly what I just said. Good God.

SpiderWebComm said:

Brian, quit being a wimp and acquiescing to them on every little thing because you're afraid to be cast off from the inner circle of what you perceive as the all knowing "in crowd".

They're disparaging your system also and you stand there like a scared stammering little kid with tears about to run down your face because of the big bad bullies amping up volume and pressure.

Now go ahead and tell me that's not what's happening and they're right. It'll prove exactly what I just said. Good God.

Click to expand...

That's not what's happening. I stammer for no one. I could (and have) agree with statements made by you, Cookie, and even Low500 (as much as I don't like admitting that one, lol), and nothing anyone else says would make me retract any agreements. It's because I am my own person, not part of some click or "in crowd" wrapped up in a 20yr old feud that I couldn't care less about. Sometimes I'm just wrong. I say or write things that, after re-reading my own words or considering someone else's words, help me realize my mistakes. That's just part of life, that and being honest enough to admit when you're wrong and move on.

Welcome back, by the way.:smile:

BC21 said:

That's not what's happening. I stammer for no one. I could (and have) agree with statements made by you, Cookie, and even Low500 (as much as I don't like admitting that one, lol), and nothing "they" say would make me retract any agreements. It's because I am my own person, not part of some click or "in crowd" wrapped up in a 20yr old feud that I couldn't care less about. Sometimes I'm just wrong. I say or write things that, after re-reading my own words or considering someone else's words, help me realize my mistakes. That's just part of life, that and being honest enough to admit when you're wrong and move on.

It IS what's happening. There are other words besides stammer that could be used with more impact and fact.

We'll see what happens if you attempt to talk about the OBJECTIVITY of various parts of your fractions system and it starts getting slowly beat down and shredded by PJ or ENGLISH. Dan won't do it and can't since he's already stated many times how it's the most objective, mathematically correct, easiest to learn, etc. even though he doesn't use it.

You're slowly being castrated by the mob and don't even know it...don't even care.
Just keep minding your manners and knowing your place in the hierarchy.



Welcome back, by the way.:smile:

Click to expand...

Thanks (I think...can't be sure. I know I'm not by a few others)

SpiderWebComm said:

We'll see what happens if you attempt to talk about the OBJECTIVITY of various parts of your fractions system and it starts getting slowly beat down and shredded by PJ or ENGLISH. Dan won't do it and can't since he's already stated many times how it's the most objective, mathematically correct, easiest to learn, etc. even though he doesn't use it.

You're slowly being castrated by the mob and don't even know it...don't even care.
Just keep minding your manners and knowing your place in the hierarchy.

Click to expand...

There is no way for me to be castrated or beat down. Facts are facts. And I'm not claiming anything that is impossible to prove or disprove. Poolology, though it uses simple math in an objective manner, still relies on a player's ability to accurately determine the values to use, which is a subjective process. One player might say a ball is positioned on 42, while another will say it looks more like 44. The first player determines the rail value to be 21, while the other calls it 22. It's all subjective.

In this example the end result is the same, it's a 1/2 ball shot regardless. If the 2nd player decided to call the rail value a 20, there is an objective mathematical process, using 20 and 44, that the player can use in order to arrive at an aim point. This objective process would provide the player with a shot slightly thicker than a halfball, 1.8mm thicker to be exact, or about 1 "tick" as Stan would say. (Actual, he says there are 360 ticks on the ball, so 1.8mm would be closer to 3.5 ticks). If done precisely, player 2 will hit the shot about 2° thicker than player 1. The calculation used for obtaining this target result was objective, but the shot itself is still subjective because the values were obtained based on individual opinion/estimation, and the two players arrive at different solutions based on their own subjectivity.

BC21 said:

There is no way for me to be castrated or beat down.

Oh really? Next time I'll point them out to you immediately since you go deaf and blind when it now happens.

Facts are facts. And I'm not claiming anything that is impossible to prove or disprove. Poolology, though it uses simple math in an objective manner, still relies on a player's ability to accurately determine the values to use, which is a subjective process. One player might say a ball is positioned on 42, while another will say it looks more like 44. The first player determines the rail value to be 21, while the other calls it 22. It's all subjective.

I guess you didn't build more fail safes into it. Sounds flawed to me.

In this example the end result is the same, it's a 1/2 ball shot regardless. If the 2nd player decided to call the rail value a 20, there is an objective mathematical process, using 20 and 44, that the player uses in order to arrive at an aim point. This objective process would provide the player with a shot slightly thicker than a halfball, 1.8mm thicker to be exact, or about 3.5 "ticks" as Stan would say. If done precisely, player 2 will hit the shot about 2° thicker than player 1. The calculation used for obtaining this target result was objective, but the shot itself is still subjective because the values were obtained based on individual opinion/estimation.

Click to expand...

See above post. Now IF you did build them in with more specific instructions based on what YOU SEE and HOW IT SHOULD BE SEEN maybe it might not happen. I don't doubt this is the case with players who use Joe Tucker's Contact Point System, CTE, SEE System, etc.

It could be "subjective" until completely schooled and trained to BE "objective. That takes time and dedication. Not something most amateur pool players have or want.
It's all about instant gratification or it's labeled as BULLSH*T.

After being with him a few times for hours, I can tell you for a fact Hunter is dialed in to do it by rote exactly the way it was taught to him. No feel, no guessing, no adjustments, no going back and forth with the eyes and head, it's spot on.

Hardly ever missing over long periods of time bear it out. When one does occur it's because of a minute error in the stroke through speed or transition.

SpiderWebComm said:

See above post. Now IF you did build them in with more specific instructions based on what YOU SEE and HOW IT SHOULD BE SEEN maybe it might not happen. I don't doubt this is the case with players who use Joe Tucker's Contact Point System, CTE, SEE System, etc.

It could be "subjective" until completely schooled and trained to BE "objective. That takes time and dedication. Not something most amateur pool players have or want.
It's all about instant gratification or it's labeled as BULLSH*T.

After being with him a few times for hours, I can tell you for a fact Hunter is dialed in to do it by rote exactly the way it was taught to him. No feel, no guessing, no adjustments, no going back and forth with the eyes and head, it's spot on.

Hardly ever missing over long periods of time bear it out. When one does occur it's because of a minute error in the stroke through speed or transition.

Click to expand...

Hunter is a pro, hardly missed prior to being dialed into CTE. Same with Stan, Brandon, Stevie, etc...

But it really doesn't matter. As much as we want to believe we all have perfect spacial skills, pinpointing an exact spot on anything without a visual marker narrows down to individual opinion, which is the official definition of subjective. What I'm calling a quarter of ball's width may be a millimeter more or a millimeter less than what you or anyone else would call an exact quarter. It's just not objective, not even after doing it a million times and solidifying it in your brain, because it's your brain and no one else is using that particular data. It only feels objective because you are 100% dialed into it. Acquiring a particular skill through repetition, rote, doesn't make it an objective process. If it requires an individual to use personal judgment, opinion, thought, etc... it's subjective.

To me none of this subjective/objective stuff is pointless bickering. If you're good at doing something because you have better motor skills or visualization skills, or invested more time than most at developing such skills, then that's all that matters. Whether it's truly objective means very little, except for those who are not as skilled or haven't put in the time to build those skills. They can only wish there was an objective path leading to where you are, then they could bypass the work you've had to put into it. Instead, they must work at it, using their own opinions, judgements, and experiences, until it feels objective to them.

SpiderWebComm said:

There is no longer a need for the MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY.

Click to expand...

When did you ever use one?

Merriam-Webster

Definition of ob·​jec·​tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb-\
...of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Click to expand...

pj
chgo

Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm:

There is no longer a need for the MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY.

Patrick Johnson said:

When did you ever use one?

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

When I looked up the definitions for the words EGOMANIAC and MEGALOMANIAC
and your picture was next to the definitions.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/egomaniac

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/megalomaniac

Brian,

Your last few post were rather well stated. You know better than to believe what some say. I have stated 2 or 3 times now that in its raw form Pooolgy might well be objective for determining no by the overlap relation between the 2 balls. In addition their words the math would work if measured accurately. The appraisals done by estimation take it out of that realm as you yourself have said.

I am certainly not trying to tear Poolology down. I have praised it. I think it is a fantastic tool both those new to the came, those in the middle, & even experienced players who might have trouble with certain shots like maybe back cuts or what ever.

You have provided those playing the game with a very good tool.

The better ones ability to assess the numbered distances to better their results will be

Please do not be taken by those with their ulterior motives.

I think you & your Poolology are Top Notch. I also give you 3 taps for how you have handled what has been thrown at you here by some. You have remained an adult mature individual who has not allowed yourself to be intimidated by the bully tactics. I know that you remain heads & heels above 'the fray'.

ALL Best Wishes for You & Yours,
RJ

PS I think we had a good reasonable discussion with no incivility. It is rather sad she some want to mischaracterize nearly everything.

ENGLISH! said:

Okay, we are more on the same page as I thought that we were.

As for the straight in shot... as seen by whom? We have pocket slop.

As PJ said, Human Vision itself is a subjective thing. My vision has gone through some changes & is probably still in the process of changing. I can place the stick down on the table corner to corner with the CB & an OB straight into a corner pocket. While standing tall & looking at it from above I am left eye dominant & will see it as straight, but if I bend down & look down the length of the stick it will then not look straight & vise versa. If I set it straight while down & then get up & look at it then it will not look straight.

I do not think we as human beings have "objective" vision.

Now that said we "know" that if a shot IS straight & the stick is placed on the line through the centers of the ball & moved on that line to strike the CB in the center so the it hits the center of the OB on that line it will move along that straight line into the center of the pocket. That is Objective KNOWLEDGE. We have similar Objective Knowledge for Cut shots but not so easily described.

I hope you can understand what I have said here.

Also a straight in shot does NOT have CIT to be dealt with regardless of speed. Per your statement about Poolology accounting for throw for a rolling CB, how so? How would the Geometry do that?

Perhaps I am going too deep into this, but I do not see the Natural Laws of Physics being taken into account by a geometric system. Math is what man has devised to try to explain the Natural Laws of Physics.

I will concede that at a rolling ball speed the CIT may not be enough to throw the ball out of the pocket but should certainly throw it off of the center line.

When you spoke, were you referring to Poolology with the arcs or after the straight line conversions?

Thanks Much for the 'conversational' discussion. I am NOT trying to find fault with Poolology. It is just that your statement that it accounts for normal CIT sounds familiar, if you know what I mean.

Best Wishes,
RJ

Click to expand...

The absolute best way to make straight in and almost straight in shots that I have ever come across is CTE.

BC21 said:

Hunter is a pro, hardly missed prior to being dialed into CTE. Same with Stan, Brandon, Stevie, etc... Landon, Tyler, Matt, and a good number more who have yet to be mentioned because they're not certified to teach yet or still taking lessons to solidify it.

Click to expand...

But the question you should be asking is WHY did they completely abandon what they used over the years to learn something so visually different that allows them to have LESS misses and become MORE consistent? Didn't that ever occur to you?

None of them are STUPID! Nobody wants to get WORSE! The individuals above can't afford to screw up their earnings and careers. Hunter is extremely intelligent.
All of them are. Tyler made the Mosconi Cup after getting it internalized.

The biggest mouths on this forum have never won a tournament of any consequence in pro pool or amateur pool. Every naysayer troll against CTE would run like dogs with a scalded butt if ever challenged to play a money match with the names above.

Cookie takes a lot of crap on here but who has finished higher than he has in the US Amateur which was either 12th or 15th. Doesn't matter, either one is crazy good.
We're not talking about the small pool of guys, pros and amateurs, that play in a large known annual tournament. We're talking about the thousands and thousands of pool players all across the country who have the skills and cajones to belly up to play in the US Open and not look like fools. They aren't bar table hacks.

More will have greater success in the future also.

All you guys want to do is NITPICK and PARSE WORDS AND MEANINGS.as the only tournament you'll attempt to win on a forum that resembles pool.

Gets sickening...IS SICKENING!

What do ALL of them know that you (plural) DON'T?

sixpack said:

The absolute best way to make straight in and almost straight in shots that I have ever come across is CTE.

Click to expand...

Regas, how does pivoting make straight in shots easier for you? I'm seriously interested.

pj <- and when are you coming to play some more?
chgo

BC21 said:

Hunter is a pro, hardly missed prior to being dialed into CTE. Same with Stan, Brandon, Stevie, etc...

But it really doesn't matter. As much as we want to believe we all have perfect spacial skills, pinpointing an exact spot on anything without a visual marker narrows down to individual opinion, which is the official definition of subjective. What I'm calling a quarter of ball's width may be a millimeter more or a millimeter less than what you or anyone else would call an exact quarter. It's just not objective, not even after doing it a million times and solidifying it in your brain, because it's your brain and no one else is using that particular data. It only feels objective because you are 100% dialed into it. Acquiring a particular skill through repetition, rote, doesn't make it an objective process. If it requires an individual to use personal judgment, opinion, thought, etc... it's subjective.

To me none of this subjective/objective stuff is pointless bickering. If you're good at doing something because you have better motor skills or visualization skills, or invested more time than most at developing such skills, then that's all that matters. Whether it's truly objective means very little, except for those who are not as skilled or haven't put in the time to build those skills. They can only wish there was an objective path leading to where you are, then they could bypass the work you've had to put into it. Instead, they must work at it, using their own opinions, judgements, and experiences, until it feels objective to them.

Click to expand...

Brian,

Rather well said, especially the last paragraph except for maybe the first sentence of it. Here you have made the point that it is a false 'selling' point for Mr. Shuffett's supposed "system". No one should be pulled into it by that false 'selling' point. If they are aware of such & still want to give it a go, then I think we all wish them well with it. No one that I know of is trying to stop anything... except that false 'selling' point.

Here is a thought. I have read some say that they have some trouble determining if a shot 'is' a 15 or a 30. Your Poololgy can help them with that.

Best,
RJ

Patrick Johnson said:

Regas, how does pivoting make straight in shots easier for you? I'm seriously interested.

pj <- and when are you coming to play some more?
chgo

Click to expand...

I can show you. It's hard to explain. It shouldn't work but man oh man does it work well. I'll be there Sunday for two weeks. I think my schedule will be more open this trip so I should be able to meet up with you.

It's actually not CTE but my interpretation of it because I don't really know CTE but I figured this out trying to figure out CTE. If that makes sense.

It's definitely a pivot system very similar to CTE.