The "It Won't Work Lie and other Great Robberies"

Low500 said:

...fractional aiming. (which is easily debunked

Click to expand...

So go ahead and "easily debunk" it for us.

observe where the inside edge of the CB is in relation to the OB. It will be either dead on or close to A, B, or C...that is if the shot is aligned as it should be to make the ball instead of misaligned to miss the shot. With that knowledge, why not use the EDGE of the CB to align to A, B, or C to begin with which is clearly visible as opposed to looking at tiny fabricated fractions

Click to expand...

lol - You just described fractional aiming, genius.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

So go ahead and "easily debunk" it for us.


lol - You just described fractional aiming, genius.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Yes...lol. The genius just keeps shining through. Well, I've always heard the cream rises to the top. But so does hot air. I find Low500 is doing a fine job, however, at baiting. He keeps posting the same misleading info on Mosconi's little red book, which has zero fractional aiming instructions in it, and I keep taking the bait by correcting him. No more though. His ignorance on that Mosconi book is so ingrained that I realize he will never accept the proof of his wrongness.

Low...
Edge of ball..a, b, or c is no different than folks using fractional lines.
Aiming center CB is even more reliable when the OB is further away.

Aim CCB at OB edge, at any distance, and the OB goes 30 degrees.
Aligning the CB edge to the OB center works but it's not as accurate.

It's not just about pocketing balls. It's about how you control the CB.

I'm done...

.

Low500 said:

As a highly trained member of the League of Modern Pool Aiming Communications and therefore on the cutting edge of societal evolution, I am constantly being asked questions concerning the professional way of aiming entitled CTE.
I received an email from a hapless fellow who somehow had the notion that A,B,C in the aiming method of CTE, was the same as fractions (which of course are inconsistent and out of date). He was struggling with the system.
I was happy to explain to the young lad that A, B, and C is NOT fractional aiming nor is 15, 30, 45.
A, B.and C. are sectional alignment starting points which lead to the shot line.
As the CTE Professor teaches........."the eyes lead and the body follows".
And when it comes to aiming pool balls, it is the evidence that matters...not mere allegations from those with an axe to grind.
The lad was very happy to know this and went back to his studies with increased zeal and vigor.
I advised him to Watch the Web.......Truth Series Day is at hand.

Click to expand...

Very good. You are 100% correct in saying A B C visuals are not the same as fractional aiming. These reference points (A, B, and C), however, are the exact references used in fractional aiming. The only difference of course is that with CTE you combine the ETA, B, or C visual with a CTE visual to get your body and vision center fixed at particular "fixed" ccb perspective from behind the cb. This is called the "perception", and from this perception you place your bridge hand exactly 1/2 a tip left or right of this "fixed" ccb line and then pivot the tip to the final ccb shot line.

That is definitely not fractional aiming. :thumbup:

But the exact same references are used in fractional aiming (not called A B C, but still the quarters of the ob). And, like CTE, fractional aiming also has a "fixed" cb with two defined edges. In fact, anytime you look at the center of a ball it is "fixed" with two defined edges. With CTE it is fixed through two visualized lines that place your body/vision within a fraction of the actual shot line, then you thicken or thin it with a pivot/sweep that is supposed to put you right on the shot line. With fractions the cb is fixed with one visualized line, the shot line itself.

Anyway, since you are on such a roll, there's something that I hope you can explain for us: Those quarter references that are used in both systems are called "objective" when using CTE but not when using fractions, though they are the exact same references. Why is that?

Low500 said:

A, B.and C. are sectional alignment starting points

Click to expand...

That just happen to be exactly the same as 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 fractional alignment starting points.

But they're not fractional points; they're "sectional" points, so...

lol

Dig faster.

pj
chgo

Low500 said:

"Texas Bobby", a well known action player in the Lone Star State, (and a very good poker player as well) texted some questions today about CTE. He'd been getting some erroneous feedback from some expert type laddies, who probably meant well, but were obviously over their heads when it came to the discussion of fractional aiming and their confusion about it being an aspect of CTE aiming.
I was happy to remind him of our access to basic teachings and guidelines from the "home office" in Kentucky that....
#1 Those who are telling him that the starting points for CTE are precisely the same as the 1/4 1/2 and 3/4 for fractions are dead wrong. The 1/4 and 3/4 aim points are different for CTE.
and...
#2 What sets CTE apart from ghost ball, contact points, and fractions is that there is no judgment required for CCB with CTE.
and...
#3 Those in most endeavors who set themselves up as "experts" are usually anything but that.
The Truth Series is at Hand..!!
:thumbup2:

Click to expand...

Prove it.
..

Low500 said:

"Texas Bobby", a well known action player in the Lone Star State, (and a very good poker player as well) texted some questions today about CTE. He'd been getting some erroneous feedback from some expert type laddies, who probably meant well, but were obviously over their heads when it came to the discussion of fractional aiming and their confusion about it being an aspect of CTE aiming.
I was happy to remind him of our access to basic teachings and guidelines from the "home office" in Kentucky that....
#1 Those who are telling him that the starting points for CTE are precisely the same as the 1/4 1/2 and 3/4 for fractions are dead wrong. The 1/4 and 3/4 aim points are different for CTE.
and...
#2 What sets CTE apart from ghost ball, contact points, and fractions is that there is no judgment required for CCB with CTE.
and...
#3 Those in most endeavors who set themselves up as "experts" are usually anything but that.
The Truth Series is at Hand..!!
:thumbup2:

Click to expand...

The ob references for CTE are the same basic quarters of the traditional 5-line fractional system. How you use the references is different, but the references themselves are the same in both systems. With CTE you use them in conjunction with the cb's edge. With fractions you use them in conjunction with the cb's center.

No judgment for ccb? How do you do an exact 1/2 tip offset in order to pivot or sweep to the correct ccb? How do you determine your cb edge is lined exactly at A or C on the object ball? Lol. It's called judgment.

BC21 said:

The ob references for CTE are the same basic quarters of the traditional 5-line fractional system. How you use the references is different, but the references themselves are the same in both systems. With CTE you use them in conjunction with the cb's edge. With fractions you use them in conjunction with the cb's center.

Click to expand...

With fractions you use the CB’s center or edge. It’s usually recommended to use the edge when the fraction is less than 1/2 (to avoid aiming “off” the OB), but they can be used interchangeably.

This isn’t true of CTE only because it’s more of a religion than an aiming system.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

With fractions you use the CB’s center or edge. It’s usually recommended to use the edge when the fraction is less than 1/2 (to avoid aiming “off” the OB), but they can be used interchangeably.

This isn’t true of CTE only because it’s more of a religion than an aiming system.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

decided not to stoop to your level

I will never, for the life of me, understand why people make an aiming method so PERSONAL...on both sides of the argument. Why is it so important that CTE supporters jump in and vigorously defend CTE at the drop of a hat? Likewise, why is it so important that the CTE opponents try to discredit and pick it apart at every opportunity? It is simply an aiming method, a way of accomplishing a task. Why can't we discuss, disagree, heck even argue without letting it get personal, on either side?

Why don't we have many years and terabytes of data arguing over the correct way to carry your cue case on your shoulder or the proper way to use a bridge? Because it does not matter as long as the task is accomplished. Just as it does not matter how you accomplish the task of getting a ball in the pocket.

Low500 said:

Perhaps I can be of assistance.
The controversy over aiming is primarily because of the fact that CTE resolves an objective CCB(center cueball). Some people have lived their lives believing that fractional systems from the outdated Mosconi methods (in his book) can do that when of course they cannot. When speaking of CCB, the users of the modern method of CTE are referring to an exact center as would occur for a perfectly setup zero angle straight in shot.
As far as your reference to personal attacks, they are prohibited by the rules of this forum under "no bashing". Violators usually get tossed out the door.
As a highly trained communicator in the field of pool aiming and on the cutting edge of societal evolution, I will declare this for you...other aiming methods DO WORK. You will seldom find a CTE user who says other methods don't work. (except for the aforementioned Mosconi fraction system which does not allow for cling...it won't work as printed in his book)
Poolology works,Contact Points work,Split the Difference works, Shiskabob works, SeeSee works, even "just get lucky with a ghost ball" works. etc. etc. etc.
But there has been an ongoing attack war in this forum by those who preach CTE will not work and is nothing but a bunch of stuff. Thus the title of my thread..."The It Won't Work Lie".
Watch The Web.....Truth Series Day is at Hand.
:thumbup2:

Click to expand...

First off, thanks for the reply. I have been around here long enough to know the arguments both for and against. I just don't get the personal stake some have in it. What does it matter if everyone but you says CTE is a sham? Doesn't hurt you one bit. So what if CTE is the Holy Grail of aiming and perfectly and objectively pockets every ball? Why does it matter to those who try to discredit it at every turn?

This thread is a perfect example. Great topic and interesting post- trying to help those working with CTE...but at the same time, it seems like the thread title is a not so subtle attempt to get a rise out of folks, which of course it did. Some would call that trolling.

jokrswylde said:

This thread is a perfect example. Great topic and interesting post- trying to help those working with CTE...but at the same time, it seems like the thread title is a not so subtle attempt to get a rise out of folks, which of course it did. Some would call that trolling.

Click to expand...

Lowest500 comes here preaching CTE as gospel.

Center To Edge aiming has been around forever.
How else does anyone aim 2 spheres? The edge
and the center.. Just because someone decides
his way is best, and coins the phrase CTE, does
not make CTE something no one has tried before.
________________________________________
What the guy who can't run 50 says about the book written by Mosconi (526 balls)

First let it be clear that I had been brainswashed for decades with the Mosconi Book
procedures about fractional aiming. (which is easily debunked, even though there are
millions who still buy into it...without even knowing what they don't know)
_________________________________________
Masconi never mentions fractional aiming in his
first or second book. I posted a picture from one
page in his first book on ball quarters in another
thread.. The low one climbs all over it like he is
Al Sharpton.. pushing a holier than thou attitude.
Low500 may be the best pool aiming instructor
in the world, but better get his facts straight first.

I'm done... Again

.

Low500 said:

The controversy over aiming is primarily because of the fact that CTE resolves an objective CCB(center cueball).

Click to expand...

Actually, the "controversy" is because, although it's impossible for any aiming system to "resolve an objective center cue ball", some CTE "believers" keep insisting it does. That's a logic-defying belief, not a fact.

Of course CTE "works" like any system does - it just doesn't work the way you insist it does.

Why do I insist on correcting this misinformation?

1. Because CTE is a for sale product that's heavily advertised here, so debunking the falsehoods in its advertising is a public service.

2. Because I think readers who come here to learn deserve to get real facts.

3. Because I don't want AzB's reputation to be that you can't trust the information you find here.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

Actually, the "controversy" is because, although it's impossible for any aiming system to "resolve an objective center cue ball", some CTE "believers" keep insisting it does. That's a logic-defying belief, not a fact.

Of course CTE "works" like any system does - it just doesn't work the way you insist it does.

Why do I insist on correcting this misinformation?

1. Because CTE is a for sale product that's heavily advertised here, so debunking the falsehoods in its advertising is a public service.

2. Because I think readers who come here to learn deserve to get real facts.

3. Because I don't want AzB's reputation to be that you can't trust the information you find here.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

CTE does solve the objective CCB. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean a dam thing. You still after 20 years think CTE is a fractional system but it's not.

You keep spreading the misinformation so we have to keep correcting you.

1. CTE currently has no products for sale. Don't know of any at this time nor do I see any being advertised. The next product " The Truth Series" will actually be posted to youtube for free.

2. Readers will get all the real facts when The Truth Series comes out if they wish to have them.

3. AZB has several problems with there reputation. Mostly coming from keyboard warriors like yourself that take pride in chasing Pro's and other more knowledgeable people away.

cookie man said:

CTE does solve the objective CCB.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's the belief we're talking about, alright.

We probably just differ about the definition of objective. And solve. And CCB.

pj <- and the
chgo