A challenge to English

SpiderWebComm said:

The name of this thread is A CHALLENGE TO ENGLISH. It's the wrong CHALLENGE.
A more appropriate challenge would be: SUBMIT TO THREE PSYCHIACTRIC EXAMS BY THREE SEPARATE PSYCHIACTRIC MEDICAL DOCTORS.
If they all concur he is a perfectly NORMALLY FUNCTIONING human being and a pillar of society, we should all back off and let him teach us everything he knows about pool so our games will elevate to levels never experienced before. We might even become as good as he is but I doubt it.
Then again, does he even play? Will he play us CTE dogs for some big cash? Will PJ play some of us for big cash? I'm very open to this. Who would like to play ENGLISH and PJ for some money with a minimum buy in at 2 grand...CTE user or not. Unfortunately I don't think either of them would consider playing for $50 bucks.
Maybe the pro players who use CTE 100% of the time would also like to get into it with these two. Tyler Styer doesn't know what he's doing with CTE, nor Hunter, nor Brandon, nor Matt, nor Stevie, nor a number of others. They all got duped and hoodwinked into thinking it was a better way to play after drinking the Kool-Aid. They've all lost the ability to think and act on their own. I mean how did Tyler even make the Mosconi Cup team and do so well with an impossible badly flawed system? Doesn't make sense. Or DOES IT?! Who is a forum member pool player to believe? A pro player ranked among the best in the world or a couple of know it all no talent, no credential 1,000,000 posting amateurs.
I also think the name of the forum should be changed from AZ Billiards to "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST" whether he passes the exam or not.
The rest of us should be thinking about psychiatric exams for ourselves due to answering this insane garbage and getting sucked in.

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

When I did it per Monty's request I too had the balls about 2 ft. apart for a long diagonal straight in shot.

I don't think you did it per the "objective" instructions.

Once down one is not supposed to look at the OB. Pivot to center & stroke straight.

After several misses that were not even close. I did similar to you & gazed at the OB & could clearly see that the stick was no where near through C2C. Then I could make the adjustment & pocket the ball.

Your more into numbers for pool than I am, but the 15 visual with the CTE line yields about a 14* degree cut if there is no tip offset. Correct?

So... per your results then the 1/2 tip pivot would yield the same 14* change. Correct?

With balls the same 2 ft. apart, How can another angle shot be pocketed with the same visual & same pivot?

Click to expand...

cookie man said:

I was agreeing with your statement. Although you guys don't quite get what all it means

Click to expand...

Low500 said:

Yep.
I now see why Wilson threw him out of here.
I got tossed myself once for 2 weeks for going off the wall on an instructor. How this ENGLISH keeps getting away with his endless hatred and bigotry is one of the mysteries "that science cannot understand".
That ENGLISH is about as much of a "scientist" as I am a "priest".
And for sure the part I highlighted in blue is absolutely correct.

Click to expand...

Tony_in_MD said:

Ignore is a great way not to watch reruns.

Click to expand...

SpiderWebComm said:

True if staying signed into the forum 100% of the time. But if you log out and don't bother signing in when you click onto any of the forums, you see ALL posts along with the ones on Ignore. I prefer signing out.

Click to expand...

SpiderWebComm said:

True if staying signed into the forum 100% of the time. But if you log out and don't bother signing in when you click onto any of the forums, you see ALL posts along with the ones on Ignore. I prefer signing out and speed reading thread titles to see what new action is worthwhile. Since a lifetime sentence and on death row for a certain prisoner got paroled, there's ALWAYS not only action but mayhem and insanity.

Click to expand...

cookie man said:

It's absolutely insane how little he knows compared to how much he thinks he knows

Click to expand...

sfleinen said:

Simple explanation, Dave. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mZxCuymd_3E

-Sean

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

Nope. I did it exactly as instructed by Stan in videos.

After I got my visuals I moved in as straight as humanly possible to that fixed ccb. I just happened to have paid attention where my cue was pointing, which you absolutely must do when learning this system in order to visualize whether or not the "perception" is thin or thick, so you'll know which way to pivot. After that you don't look at the ob anymore. Simply align your cue 1/2 tip right or left of this perception line through ccb and then pivot to the final ccb. And I can do it on straight in shots, which is how they say one should begin. I've made other shots with it also, whenever the pivot just happens to work right without having to change the bridge length or offset for the pivot, sticking to an exact 1/2 tip pivot and 9" bridge.

Here's the thing...it's surprising how often the same (or very close to the same) angles come up when playing pool. If you roll a cb and ob across the table, the majority of the time they end up in a position where the shot angle is within 10° or so of a halfball hit. I can set an ob a couple of inches short of center table, toward the foot spot, and place the cb 2ft away from it and lined up to shoot the ob straight to a point on the long rail halfway between the 1st and 2nd diamonds from my targeted corner pocket, same end of the table. This shot requires a 5/8 hit according to the Poolology. But due to slight differences in CIT, and accounting for the allowable margin of error at the pocket, the shot can be made by aiming anywhere between a 5/8 aim and a 1/2 ball aim. Add some outside english and you can aim thicker than 5/8 too. My point is, factoring in the ability to manipulate shots by several degrees using speed or spin to affect CIT and/or SIT, and accounting for margin of error at the pocket, one can use a limited range of aiming references to pocket the majority of shots, regardless of whatever system is being used.

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

Brian,

Please see what I put in blue.

So... did you set your stick down on the line, & then gauge whether to shift right or left to thin or thicken?

If so, can you direct me to where Mr. Shuffett has said to do that. I have seen where once he has gotten the visual he decides while in the standing position whether it needs to be thinned of thicken. He then makes the sweep or sets the stick offset & pivots. I have not noticed him nor heard him say that you set the stick down on the line in order to determine whether it needs to be thinned or thickened while looking through CCB to see where it is aligned on or off of the OB.

Does that not take subjectively learned info. in order to make that determination?

If that is the case would not there be a wide array of amounts of thinning & thickening needed & would that not put a sense of failure in one's mind knowing that the pivot is specifically defined & can only do so much & in a restricted amount per its defined parameters.

I think we both understand the need for having the subjectively built data base in order to just make the subjective decision whether to pivot to thicken or pivot to thin.

If it is required to set the stick & see where it is pointed before making that determination that is news to me, but is certainly not needed when shooting a straight in shot.

I don't think you answered my question about the angles regarding the 15 visual offset & what the defined pivot yields. At what distance of separation would they equate? I know that it would depend on the bridge length, but when Monty Ohrt wanted me to try the straight in shot he did not specify any bridge length. So, I just used what felt right given where the CB was on the table which was about 11 or 12 inches if I recall correctly.

Thanks in advance for your time & effort.

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

Here: https://youtu.be/4iuvQT7dwfs?t=175s

Angles: with a 9" bridge and a 12.75mm shaft, the offset pivot angle is 1.4°. Place an ob two diamonds away from cb and lined straight into a pocket. The 15 perception l get with the visuals would give a 15.8° shot angle. So an outside pivot (a 1/2 tip 1.4° with a 9" bridge) creates zero angle, C2C. An inside pivot would create a shot angle of 32.9°. If you move the ob farther away, the outside pivot will still bring you a zero shot angle, but the inside pivot creates thinner shot angles as the distance between balls increases.

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

Yes. I've seen that video. I guess I just pictured you doing something different in the DOWN position.

So... would you say that for the approximate same straight in shot with about 24" of separation that you & I did, that it was my 12" bridge length that yielded totally different results?

Also... are you saying that for a 9" bridge there is 32.9* of difference between an outside pivot & an inside Pivot?

If so, then how would shots between those angles be made with the same visual & same pivot?

Click to expand...

sixpack said:

Fair enough.

But even that statement is designed (intentionally or not) to get under people's skin.

You say "a few vocal proponents who can't seem to understand the most basic common sense." I assume I'm included in that and when you said I was being dishonest I lost my cool. If you want to have civil conversations you can't throw those cutesy insults in there.

I was answering the question I thought you were going to next. I understood your point with the rods and assumed you knew I did so I went to the next step.

I have an undergraduate degree in Math/Computer science. First two years were physics before I switched. I have a graduate degree in a very mathematical discipline. Both from a top engineering school. I've done extensive 3d modeling and co-authored a CAD system when I was in college. Believe me I can understand any math/physics/science that you can throw at me. Or Dan or PJ. I've met and played with PJ and we get along just fine. Dr. Dave is another story. I like him and his posts but generally I don't want to work hard enough to understand the math that he throws around. But I could if I wasn't so dang lazy.

On paper, CTE does not work. We all agree on that. Not one person has been able to draw a diagram of CTE that works and is geometrically correct.

But that's not relevant because it isn't supposed to work on paper. It is supposed to work in real life. In three dimensions.

I don't know if it does. I gave up on it years (decades?) ago because I thought there was no way it works. Because I tried to draw it on paper. Because I'm an engineer/math guy.

Then at an AZB meetup I met an AZB member who used CTE and he showed me a little of it. Literally 3-4 minutes. One aim point and the pivot. Something clicked and I was fascinated because it *shouldn't* work but it did. I watched Stan's videos and I had some of the same problems you do with them.

I love Stan (even though I've never met him, I admire his dedication) and I couldn't figure out CTE from the videos.

So I started thinking about how it might work. I started looking at ways that it could work. And you know what happened? I started seeing it and making balls. I remember as clearly as if it were yesterday. I was trying it and a guy came up and asked me to play. I said sure and just decided to use what I was doing (CTE-ish?) on every shot. He racked 8-ball. I broke and ran out. He racked again and went to get a drink. I broke and ran ANOTHER rack. Not even looking at anything but the perceptions and pivoting to the spot. I was playing with a house cue.

The guy I was playing looked at me and turned and walked away without saying a word.

That night I was shooting balls in like a fiend. From everywhere. Straight in, slight angle, hard back cuts full table length. I wasn't even bothering to play position because I knew I could make ANY shot.

What I was doing was NOT CTE. Or at least a very limited version of CTE. I know that now. But it worked really, really well. And I think CTE probably works better. What I've learned since tells me that it does work very well.

This week, after three months of travel and hardly playing I went to practice with a buddy. I couldn't make a ball. Then I decided to use CTESP (CTE sixpack) and suddenly everything starts working and I ran a table of 8-ball.

I don't use CTESP all the time because I have been so busy with work and caring for a sick relative the last few years that I haven't had time to really get used to doing it. So I generally use my old aiming system and Poolology if I can't see something right.

I think the answer to your question is that I look for reasons it can work and you (all) look for reasons it won't work.

One of the best banking systems for me is one where you just visualize the path of the ball and it lights up for you.

Same for putting in golf. And I've had 9 holes of golf where I only putted 11 times...And shot 29 (par 36) in case you think I had a lot of chip shots.

Obviously there is something else going on there. Something in the brain. And yet, it works.

What I was trying to explain earlier is that I think the magic happens in the pivot and the perception.

The perception changes. Even in your question you asked me earlier. If you move your eyes right or left the convergence of the rods moves to different places.

So yeah. I believe that there is something there. And I can't wait to see what Stan has been working on because I'm curious about it. I want to explore this mystery. My mind is always looking for patterns and finding them where most don't even look.

That doesn't make me unable to understand common sense. It makes me willing to go beyond it.

Click to expand...

JoeyInCali said:

Does that mean then ( the way it works ) it varies from person to person ?

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

Not sure about bridge distances, other than a longer bridge distance would create smaller angles and shorter bridge distance would create bigger angles. And this only pertains to strict manual pivots, certainly not Pro1 sweeps.

As far as angle difference between inside and outside pivots... Using a straight in shot and working backwards, knowing that an exact 1/2 tip pivot must be used, and knowing the exact bridge length I used was 9" (which gives a pivot angle of 1.4° through ccb), it's pretty simple to reverse engineer the math and come up with the shot angles. The outside pivot leads to a center to center alignment, so that's a given starting point, the "outside" pivot line. Rotating this line through center cb at a pivot angle of 1.4° will lead to the perception line. It's from this line that each offset pivot originates. So rotating another 1.4° through ccb takes us to the "inside" pivot line. In the example I provided (ob 25" from cb), the resulting shot angles produced for thick and thin, are 0° and 32.9°. The perception itself would produce a 15.8° shot if used, but it's never used.

I don't know the answer to your last question. That is where I quit trying to make it work, because the balls do not "present themselves differently" for me anytime the same setup is located elsewhere on the table. Maybe the book or truth will explain that little tidbit.

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

Here's another one....https://youtu.be/2KwI_62Npos?t=68s

I'm not sure about bridge distances, other than a longer bridge distance would create smaller angles and shorter bridge distance would create bigger angles. And this only pertains to strict manual pivots, certainly not Pro1 sweeps.

As far as angle difference between inside and outside pivots... Using a straight in shot and working backwards, knowing that an exact 1/2 tip pivot must be used, and knowing the exact bridge length I used was 9" (which gives a pivot angle of 1.4° through ccb), it's pretty simple to reverse engineer the math and come up with the shot angles. The outside pivot leads to a center to center alignment, so that's a given starting point, the "outside" pivot line. Rotating this line through center cb at a pivot angle of 1.4° will lead to the perception line. It's from this line that each offset pivot originates. So rotating another 1.4° through ccb takes us to the "inside" pivot line. In the example I provided (ob 25" from cb), the resulting shot angles produced for thick and thin, are 0° and 32.9°. The perception itself would produce a 15.8° shot if used, but it's never used.

I don't know the answer to your last question. That is where I quit trying to make it work, because the balls do not "present themselves differently" for me anytime the same setup is located elsewhere on the table. Maybe the book or truth will explain that little tidbit.

Click to expand...