I tried CTE again

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
BC21 said:
I would never assume to know how someone else sees and thinks while aiming.

Isn't that what we're doing (at least partly) when we insist there's no such thing as a "completely objective" aiming system?

pj
chgo



No. I was making the point that you really don't know exactly what someone else is doing when they aim. Objectivity has nothing to do with it. If you tell me you're using contact points or ghostball or CTE or fractions, or whatever, I have no way of proving you aren't, because I'm not in your head, not seeing through your eyes or tapping into your thought process.

But if you tell me what you're doing is 100% objective, that is easy to prove or disprove because the word "objective" has a literal definition. And if any part of what you are doing requires experienced judgment, opinion, estimation, etc... (consciously or subconsciously), then that is subjective.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member


No. I was making the point that you really don't know exactly what someone else is doing when they aim. Objectivity has nothing to do with it. If you tell me you're using contact points or ghostball or CTE or fractions, or whatever, I have no way of proving you aren't, because I'm not in your head, not seeing through your eyes or tapping into your thought process.

But if you tell me what you're doing is 100% objective, that is easy to prove or disprove because the word "objective" has a literal definition. And if any part of what you are doing requires experienced judgment, opinion, estimation, etc... (consciously or subconsciously), then that is subjective.
We agree mostly - I just think believing you're not "subconsciously adjusting" is a significant part of "what you see and think while aiming".

No bigee, just a minor point.

pj
chgo
 

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Agreed. I was specifically talking about the aiming process, Part A only (pocketing balls), where the goal is to send the ob into the pocket. Of course pool requires more than this -- Part B, moving the cb from one shot to the next. Keeping Part A working well and successfully incorporating Part B is the nuts.

I don't think I've explained it properly.

When you play instinctively or aim with a 'direct' (ghost ball, contact to contact, railroad tracks, etc...) aiming system you can make teensy adjustments to get the CB path and speed you want and still make the ball.

When you use a proxy system (Poolology, edge of cue, CTE or any other pivot system, etc...) then there is a different way to adjust because your perception of the shot is not direct.

If I'm aiming CP to CP then I'm looking directly at where I'm going to hit the CB to make the shot.

If I'm lining up Center to Edge and then pivoting, I'm not even looking at anything directly. In fact, in Shish-ka-bob you are supposed to keep your head still during and after you pivot so your perception is different. Your eyes are now looking at the tip of the cue from an angle. That is a key part of the system and that perception is what helps you get angles in between the major pivot points. So you are not looking at the true or direct shot.

That's why you can miss a seemingly easy shot if you do the pivot wrong.

Because I haven't had enough practice time with CTE or Shish-ka-bob I can't tell if I'm a little off or on so I just have to trust the system. Which is great except that I'm not sure what part of the pocket the ball is going in. And so I'm not entirely sure how my cueball is going to travel after contact.

I can play English and I completely understand BHE, I've been doing it since the first year I played pool. I also completely understand and use parallel English when it makes sense to.

I wasn't asking for help on how to play better, I was offering an observation about what I experienced when I tried to use CTE exclusively for an evening of leagues. Like I said, relatively easy to pocket balls but it takes time to really get used to it. Especially position play with applying English and adjusting your aim slightly to cheat the pocket etc...

I think there is a difference between how I do CTE and how you and some of the others have tried it. I could be wrong and I'm completely open to that possibility.

When I pivot, I don't say to myself: "Ok, now I've pivoted and that has put me in the straight, perfect alignment to make this ball." And then reset around that alignment. Instead I pivot and disconnect myself from the aim alignment because I don't want to make subtle subconscious adjustments.

The visuals after I pivot do not look correct to me. At all. But I've learned to trust them. I just haven't learned how to adjust them correctly yet for different things.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I don't think I've explained it properly.

When you play instinctively or aim with a 'direct' (ghost ball, contact to contact, railroad tracks, etc...) aiming system you can make teensy adjustments to get the CB path and speed you want and still make the ball.

When you use a proxy system (Poolology, edge of cue, CTE or any other pivot system, etc...) then there is a different way to adjust because your perception of the shot is not direct.

If I'm aiming CP to CP then I'm looking directly at where I'm going to hit the CB to make the shot.

If I'm lining up Center to Edge and then pivoting, I'm not even looking at anything directly. In fact, in Shish-ka-bob you are supposed to keep your head still during and after you pivot so your perception is different. Your eyes are now looking at the tip of the cue from an angle. That is a key part of the system and that perception is what helps you get angles in between the major pivot points. So you are not looking at the true or direct shot.

That's why you can miss a seemingly easy shot if you do the pivot wrong.

Because I haven't had enough practice time with CTE or Shish-ka-bob I can't tell if I'm a little off or on so I just have to trust the system. Which is great except that I'm not sure what part of the pocket the ball is going in. And so I'm not entirely sure how my cueball is going to travel after contact.

I can play English and I completely understand BHE, I've been doing it since the first year I played pool. I also completely understand and use parallel English when it makes sense to.

I wasn't asking for help on how to play better, I was offering an observation about what I experienced when I tried to use CTE exclusively for an evening of leagues. Like I said, relatively easy to pocket balls but it takes time to really get used to it. Especially position play with applying English and adjusting your aim slightly to cheat the pocket etc...

I think there is a difference between how I do CTE and how you and some of the others have tried it. I could be wrong and I'm completely open to that possibility.

When I pivot, I don't say to myself: "Ok, now I've pivoted and that has put me in the straight, perfect alignment to make this ball." And then reset around that alignment. Instead I pivot and disconnect myself from the aim alignment because I don't want to make subtle subconscious adjustments.

The visuals after I pivot do not look correct to me. At all. But I've learned to trust them. I just haven't learned how to adjust them correctly yet for different things.

You explained it fine. I knew what you were talking about anyway, as far as not being directly in line with where the cue is pointed on that final ccb when using cte. That's why simple little bhe movements feel awkward. Like you said, you just haven't learned how to incorporate that into cte playing yet.
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
I wonder how many would accept someone telling them that they are not aiming the way they explain they are aiming?

That they don’t know what they are really doing?

You state you use xyz method, but they insist you really are using abc in your mind, you just don’t know it.

Me.....I’d tell’em to kiss my ass.

Don't worry, until you are a well known player, nobody is going to claim credit. I Wonder the most about what snooker players would say...Some of the best ones have been "claimed" for secretly/unknowingly using CTE allready. Since these players are somewhat marketable, it could be grounds for a lawsuit. Fortunately I don't think any of them care enough to bother and even if they did, I think they'd laugh at the idea of a "pool aiming system". They would ask: "You need to aim in pool?" Then laugh hysterically. It hurts, but it's the truth.

The fact that you can be an expert at an Activity without being consciously able to explain what you are doing, should not be misinterpreted to not being at all aware of what you are doing...These are different concepts all together.Trust me, they know what they are looking at. I know a pro in snooker, not one of the top guys, but a well known one, one of these days I'm going to ask him.
 
Last edited:

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Don't worry, until you are a well known player, nobody is going to claim credit. I Wonder the most about what snooker players would say...Some of the best ones have been "claimed" for secretly/unknowingly using CTE allready. Since these players are somewhat marketable, it could be grounds for a lawsuit. Fortunately I don't think any of them care enough to bother and even if they did, I think they'd laugh at the idea of a "pool aiming system". They would ask: "You need to aim in pool?" Then laugh hysterically. It hurts, but it's the truth.

The fact that you can be an expert at an Activity without being consciously able to explain what you are doing, should not be misinterpreted to not being at all aware of what you are doing...These are different concepts all together.Trust me, they know what they are looking at. I know a pro in snooker, not one of the top guys, but a well known one, one of these days I'm going to ask him.
https://youtu.be/rsqvhqX1HMo?t=192
There are a ton of snooker videos on YouTube from WORLD CLASS instructors. Instructors who have taught champions.
They would probably laugh at that claim.
 
Last edited:

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
Don't worry, until you are a well known player, nobody is going to claim credit. I Wonder the most about what snooker players would say...Some of the best ones have been "claimed" for secretly/unknowingly using CTE allready. Since these players are somewhat marketable, it could be grounds for a lawsuit. Fortunately I don't think any of them care enough to bother and even if they did, I think they'd laugh at the idea of a "pool aiming system". They would ask: "You need to aim in pool?" Then laugh hysterically. It hurts, but it's the truth.

The fact that you can be an expert at an Activity without being consciously able to explain what you are doing, should not be misinterpreted to not being at all aware of what you are doing...These are different concepts all together.Trust me, they know what they are looking at. I know a pro in snooker, not one of the top guys, but a well known one, one of these days I'm going to ask him.

Not sure how many have noticed, but I use the phrase sighting method instead of aiming systems. Those are two different concepts.

In pool and snooker, there is truely no aiming. It’s impossible to aim in other words cause there is nothing to aim with.....nothing, and I don’t care what others think about this.

Sighting a shot is really what is going on instead of aiming. Sighting a shot is considering where the OB needs to go, considering where the CB needs to go, and considering all the variables that influences those two objectives.

And then, based on past successful shots, you sight where the CB needs to go in order to achieve those two objectives. You will never get away from trial and error in pool.....never. This is why HAMB is so valuable.

You will not convince me there are aiming systems in pool, so don’t try.
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
Not sure how many have noticed, but I use the phrase sighting method instead of aiming systems. Those are two different concepts.

In pool and snooker, there is truely no aiming. It’s impossible to aim in other words cause there is nothing to aim with.....nothing, and I don’t care what others think about this.

Sighting a shot is really what is going on instead of aiming. Sighting a shot is considering where the OB needs to go, considering where the CB needs to go, and considering all the variables that influences those two objectives.

And then, based on past successful shots, you sight where the CB needs to go in order to achieve those two objectives. You will never get away from trial and error in pool.....never. This is why HAMB is so valuable.

You will not convince me there are aiming systems in pool, so don’t try.

Who's saying there is no trial and error? Not me, that's for sure. I think you're confusing me with the cultists. I use contact points mostly, some ghost ball.. These are not "algorithms" that can be instantly followed, even if they are easily understood. Instead you need some training and trial and error to learn where the cueball contact point is etc.. Some systems will get you in the ballpark on at least a number of speeds, but then there's the spin and throw...There will always be compensations made that are learned from experience.

You really are one about the definitions, huh? Aiming/sighting what's the f-ing difference? You are talking about visualisation and confusing that with the aiming process. You see, it doesn't do you a damned bit of good to see where the ball needs to go or even imagining/calculating compensations for spin, if you can't line up your cue with the cueball in the direction needed. That's what aiming is. What's so hard to grasp about that? You are looking along the cue to the cueball, no matter what spin is used, even sidespin and regardless of system or "feel" or whatever. Alignment is getting the body in the position where it can deliver the cue straight. Then the cue needs to be delivered. These are basic, easy words to understand, not made up ju-ju jargon like "rotating edges" and the like. These are basic concepts that anyone should and could understand. You're picking non-existing nits. This trolling routine is getting really old from you. Are you going to tell us there is no cue next? #Edited to remove some unnecessary comments. I stand by them, but don't think they were very productive.
 
Last edited:

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
Who's saying there is no trial and error? Not me, that's for sure. I think you're confusing me with the cultists. I use contact points mostly, some ghost ball.. These are not "algorithms" that can be instantly followed, even if they are easily understood. Instead you need some training and trial and error to learn where the cueball contact point is etc.. Some systems will get you in the ballpark on at least a number of speeds, but then there's the spin and throw...There will always be compensations made that are learned from experience.

You really are one about the definitions, huh? Aiming/sighting what's the f-ing difference? You are talking about visualisation and confusing that with the aiming process. You see, it doesn't do you a damned bit of good to see where the ball needs to go or even imagining/calculating compensations for spin, if you can't line up your cue with the cueball in the direction needed. That's what aiming is. What's so hard to grasp about that? You are looking along the cue to the cueball, no matter what spin is used, even sidespin and regardless of system or "feel" or whatever. Alignment is getting the body in the position where it can deliver the cue straight. Then the cue needs to be delivered. These are basic, easy words to understand, not made up ju-ju jargon like "rotating edges" and the like. These are basic concepts that anyone should and could understand. You're picking non-existing nits. This trolling routine is getting really old from you. Are you going to tell us there is no cue next? #Edited to remove some unnecessary comments. I stand by them, but don't think they were very productive.


Look, it’s my pool world and I’ll think and define anything I god damn want too.

Got it ?

Prime example of conditioned thinking.....oh it must be called a aiming system.....bullshit
 
Last edited:

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Look, it’s my pool world and I’ll think and define anything I god damn want too.

Got it ?

Prime example of conditioned thinking.....oh it must be called a aiming system.....bullshit

Emotional much?
 

Boxcar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Who's saying there is no trial and error? Not me, that's for sure. I think you're confusing me with the cultists. I use contact points mostly, some ghost ball.. These are not "algorithms" that can be instantly followed, even if they are easily understood. Instead you need some training and trial and error to learn where the cueball contact point is etc.. Some systems will get you in the ballpark on at least a number of speeds, but then there's the spin and throw...There will always be compensations made that are learned from experience.

You really are one about the definitions, huh? Aiming/sighting what's the f-ing difference? You are talking about visualisation and confusing that with the aiming process. You see, it doesn't do you a damned bit of good to see where the ball needs to go or even imagining/calculating compensations for spin, if you can't line up your cue with the cueball in the direction needed. That's what aiming is. What's so hard to grasp about that? You are looking along the cue to the cueball, no matter what spin is used, even sidespin and regardless of system or "feel" or whatever. Alignment is getting the body in the position where it can deliver the cue straight. Then the cue needs to be delivered. These are basic, easy words to understand, not made up ju-ju jargon like "rotating edges" and the like. These are basic concepts that anyone should and could understand. You're picking non-existing nits. This trolling routine is getting really old from you. Are you going to tell us there is no cue next? #Edited to remove some unnecessary comments. I stand by them, but don't think they were very productive.

Are you possibly suggesting that Duckie is a quack?
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
Look, it’s my pool world and I’ll think and define anything I god damn want too.

Got it ?

Prime example of conditioned thinking.....oh it must be called a aiming system.....bullshit

Yep, I'm pretty sure I got it. For the rest of us, not residing on planet Duckie, it's good to have established definitions that People understand. That is, if we want to have aiming discussions instead of aiming monologues, like you seem to enjoy.

For Your information, Spider was the one who insisted on calling every conceivable Method of aiming a "system". I would prefer not being Associated With his body of thought, as it is widely different from my own in nearly all respects. I believe you when you say you don't use a system. I don't think even I use a system in the stricktest possible way, in my everyday snooker and pool play.

For the record I'm fine With People calling Things whatever they want, just don't expect people to adopt every whackjob definiton they come up With. Boobeliboo kaisham nokyeat. That means have a Nice day in a Language I just invented, because inventing nonsense is what this forum is all about, now.
 
Last edited:

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
You sure that doesn't translate into Good For You? :smile:

Poor Spidey only wanted to congratulate and wish people well. Can you believe how people got offended by his innocent acronyms, even when he went to great lengths to define exactly what they meant? It's almost as if the established interpretation overides poorly concocted definitions.;)
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Poor Spidey only wanted to congratulate and wish people well. Can you believe how people got offended by his innocent acronyms, even when he went to great lengths to define exactly what they meant? It's almost as if the established interpretation overides poorly concocted definitions.;)

Nice how you tied that all together.
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Poor Spidey only wanted to congratulate and wish people well. Can you believe how people got offended by his innocent acronyms, even when he went to great lengths to define exactly what they meant? It's almost as if the established interpretation overides poorly concocted definitions.;)

He also subtly went for the jugular with little lies and innuendo.
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
He also subtly went for the jugular with little lies and innuendo.

Innuendo, you say? I never knew he was an eskimo, or that he studied their martial arts. I'm somewhat of a conoisseur of the subject myself, and I can heartily recommend the movie "Crouching wife, hidden ornamental walrus tusk". Though martial arts is only briefly mentioned, it's part of the rich tapestry on which the action unfolds. There is also the more light hearted, but still penetrating work "Big Sally and Bubba in flying blubber trouble". The daily inuits adult review section gave it "two thumbs in". Again martial arts is extremely tangential, you can say that it's the only aspect of Big Sally that's never touched upon.
 
Last edited:

Boxcar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Odd, isn't it, how life and pool so closely resemble Pavlov's experiments with dogs?
 
Top