A CTE test!

[mantis99]

Here are a few for you to try, but they are all on 9 ft table which does make a difference in being able to reach shots.

Basiclly, CTE has problems with shots where you can not get into perfect bridge, stance, or cue placement. I've read of anyone using CTE with a mechincal bridge either, not can it be used on one handed shots. How bout a behind the back shot that is used at times when the OB abd CB are both close to a rail and pocket on the long side of the table?

Get away from just playing 9 ball or 1 pocket and you will see how limiting and useless CTE is.

Thanks for posting up some shots Duckie, I appreciate the effort. However, I did not really mean it in regards to shots that affected your bridge or reach. I rather meant it in regards to the mathematical validity of the system. Thus I meant it for shots that are out of the ranges that the available sight lines should allow you to make on paper.

While your pictures bring up some valid points regarding some limitations, or inherent difficulties regarding the system, I don't know that it becomes useless because of that. If it works as a system, one can pick and choose the shots they need it for, making those easier. Of course, people who successfully use PRO ONE should not have a problem with those shots for alignment, but that is really besides the point. A decent pool player will likely be able to align most shots without any help from any system, but certain angles and types of shots make it more difficult to be consistently accurate. I think something like CTE would be useful here. Some will make it there regular routine, and some will only use it on shots they don't naturally see easily, that is of course up to the person. I really just want to see if there are actual gray area ranges that the system can't account for. Those shots are the ones I would love for you to reference. Thanks!

 

[BRKNRUN]

I will have to try the changing pivot idea with straight in shots. However, I am only going to adjust the pivot as much as I would with my normal stroke, to see if it makes a difference for my stroke. I know the DVD already gives suggestions for adjustments in bridge length, but I have not played with that part of it much yet.

I chose 1" and 29" to make the discrepancy very obvious.

When you stay between 8" and 12" it may not be "as obvious" but there is still a minor change.

Now....we as human beings are able to overcome this discrepancy by our own common sense and our own built in aiming mechanisms that our brain has...

However...it won't be noticeable to the naked eye of a third party bystander watching.

Unless the method provides "exact" pivot point lengths for each and every shot...there is no way an umbrella pivot point...or worse yet a "let the pivot point work itself out" pivot point can be classified as "exact" (except on the few shots that it does happen to be exact)

The process you follow in the method may be exact...but that does not make the method exact.....if that were the case any method could be considered exact.

If every time I shoot I close one eye and cover the other and set the cue behind the CB....does that make it "exact"? .....I am doing the "exact" same process every time...but in no way will my alignment be exact every time....I may luck into an exact alignment to make the ball on occaision...but more often than not I will be out of alignment and need at least minor "adjustments"

There are some of us that have accepted the method for what it is and use parts of it that are of help in alignment....even if it is not "exact"....I actually use the method for banks....I don't go through the whole mechanical part...but I can see with my eye which way the ball needs to be cut for a bank and then find the CTEL and then "visually" pivot to center and notice the vertical axis on the OB I need to hit to make the bank.....The method is simply a "tool" that helps me gain the right "feel" for what makes the bank.....Is it exact...hell no...does it work...quite often yes.

Those that are hung up on the "exact" part of the method have for the most part gone off the deep end. :wink:

 

[mantis99]

I chose 1" and 29" to make the discrepancy very obvious.

When you stay between 8" and 12" it may not be "as obvious" but there is still a minor change.

Now....we as human beings are able to overcome this discrepancy by our own common sense and our own built in aiming mechanisms that our brain has...

However...it won't be noticeable to the naked eye of a third party bystander watching.

Unless the method provides "exact" pivot point lengths for each and every shot...there is no way an umbrella pivot point...or worse yet a "let the pivot point work itself out" pivot point can be classified as "exact" (except on the few shots that it does happen to be exact)

The process you follow in the method may be exact...but that does not make the method exact.....if that were the case any method could be considered exact.

If every time I shoot I close one eye and cover the other and set the cue behind the CB....does that make it "exact"? .....I am doing the "exact" same process every time...but in no way will my alignment be exact every time....I may luck into an exact alignment to make the ball on occaision...but more often than not I will be out of alignment and need at least minor "adjustments"

There are some of us that have accepted the method for what it is and use parts of it that are of help in alignment....even if it is not "exact"....I actually use the method for banks....I don't go through the whole mechanical part...but I can see with my eye which way the ball needs to be cut for a bank and then find the CTEL and then "visually" pivot to center and notice the vertical axis on the OB I need to hit to make the bank.....The method is simply a "tool" that helps me gain the right "feel" for what makes the bank.....Is it exact...hell no...does it work...quite often yes.

Those that are hung up on the "exact" part of the method have for the most part gone off the deep end. :wink:

So I went to my table and shot straight in shots into the side pocket from about 15" apart, and then nearly full table shots from about 5' apart. I used a very short bridge of about 1.5-2.0", my standard bridge, and then a long bridge of about 14". I got into my sight lines, then focused on the CB, addressed it at 1/2 tip off set, pivoted in, and fired without looking up at the OB. I purposely avoided any type of adjustment. I made each shot without much difference, if any, as to how the OB went into the pocket (although I couldn't see it that well on the shorter shots as I tried to make sure I did not look up early enough to make any subconscious adjustment). I am not sure howmuch that means within ones game, and it was not scientific, I just wanted to see how much the bridge length really affected the shots.

On another note, I had a back cut shot with the CB almost against the rail at the side pocket forcing me to come down on the CB, creating a very short bridge. This definately through things off. Once I sighted and pivoted with a little longer bridge length, the shot went as normal, but I missed badly before that, so there must be some credence to the bridge length idea.

 

[mantis99]

When the word "exact" is used with this system it should be assumed that it is meant to address the mathematics of the system, not the actual carrying out of the system. Any time the human element is added, any exact system will have a factor of error. Of course your address, actual pivot to center, sighting of the lines will not be exact every time, and will in fact need practice to even become proficient for the system. My point again falls to the question of whether or not the system can get you in correct alignment on all shots with the sight lines, pivots, and bridge lengths stated on the DVD. Some have presented math that suggests there are a number of shots that will be out of the available range of the given sight lines. Others suggest that there is error in that math, but have not been able to figure out the actual math themselves. Thus, I would like someone to give an example of an unmakable shot with CTE, and a CTE expert show how they propose it can be made.

I like the system so far for a lot of shots, but need to understand if there are certain shots in which I should stay away from it. I also think it would be a much more valuable system if we were able to determine what shots need what sight lines, adjustment, and bridge length without having to shoot a million shots each with the system to figure it out.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

mantis99:
My point again falls to the question of whether or not the system can get you in correct alignment on all shots with the sight lines, pivots, and bridge lengths stated on the DVD.

Exactly how do you determine from the "sight lines stated on the DVD" where to place your stick before pivoting? If you can't describe this in objective detail so that anybody would do the exact same things you would do, then you have no system to test.

pj
chgo

 

[AtLarge]

So I went to my table and shot straight in shots into the side pocket from about 15" apart, and then nearly full table shots from about 5' apart. I used a very short bridge of about 1.5-2.0", my standard bridge, and then a long bridge of about 14". I got into my sight lines, then focused on the CB, addressed it at 1/2 tip off set, pivoted in, and fired without looking up at the OB. I purposely avoided any type of adjustment. I made each shot without much difference...

I think this shows the fallacy of your trying to do these experiments. You claim that you are pivoting from about 2" in one case and 14" in the other case (with all else being the same) and making the OB in both cases on long shots. I haven't tried to figure out exactly how large the difference is in the angle resulting from these two pivots, and how much difference that produces in where the CB is sent down table, but I can see just visually on a table that it is a highly significant difference. The OB paths (if, indeed the CB even hits the OB on both trials) would be quite different.

 

[AtLarge]

... My point again falls to the question of whether or not the system can get you in correct alignment on all shots with the sight lines, pivots, and bridge lengths stated on the DVD. ...

mantis, I don't know exactly what shot angles the system produces for any given CB/OB separation. That would depend upon precisely identifying the exact steps that take you to the final cue stick alignment. But we don't need to do that for you to see the "holes" in the system. Stick with me here for a minute, and I'll try to get you to just visualize the holes.

Dr. Dave has analyzed Stan's DVD and concluded that it produces 6 distinct cut angles in each direction for a given CB/OB separation, or a total of 11 shot angles (without counting "straight" twice). One enthusiastic CTE advocate says, no, Stan's CTE actually produces just 5 cut angles in each direction, for a total of 9 shot angles.

Now, let's imagine you are standing at the edge of a table bed that stretches to infinity to the left, right, and straight ahead -- but it has no pockets. Imagine the CB near your side of this shot plane, and the OB a few feet out on the plane. Now let's run through all 9 or 11 of the shot prescriptions for Stan's CTE, putting the CB and OB back in the same place each time (ignore that we might not be able to retrieve them on our infinite table bed).

Now, note. Stan's CTE uses the location of the pocket only to choose which of the set of 9 or 11 alignment maneuvers to use for a given shot. So on the infinitely large, but pocketless, table bed for our experiment, we're just ignoring the choice of one of the 9 or 11, and we're going to do all of them with the same CB/OB set-up.

So we do all 9 or 11 of the shots and somehow trace exactly on our table bed the path of the OB after the collision. What do we see on the table bed? We see a fan-shaped array of 9 or 11 tracings, or lines, on the table bed. Observe that there are significant spaces between the tracings/lines, and that the farther out on our table bed you look, the larger is the space between the lines.

Now imagine you could drop down on top of our infinitely large table bed, with its 9 or 11 shot lines, a 50" x 100" rectangle with "pockets" in the appropriate places. You are free to align this drop-down rectangle in any manner you want to, just making sure the CB and OB are on the drop-down table each time. Imagine doing this over and over again, placing the drop-down table in different positions relative to the "shot-fan." Now suppose for each of these visual trials, we assume we have only one pocket (Pocket A) of interest on the drop-down table -- the same pocket every time.

What you can see (visualize) doing this is that sometimes one of the 9 or 11 shot lines from our traced shot fan leads directly into Pocket A (including "slop"). But other times absolutely none of the traced shot lines leads to Pocket A. In those cases, Pocket A is in the gap, or the hole, between two of the shot angles produced by Stan's CTE method.

This has been kind of a long way to say something that is quite simple, but I hope it may help a few people visualize what some of us are saying about the system not being "exact" -- some shots are in the gaps between the shot angles produced by the method.

 

[driven]

Sensitivity to initial conditions is popularly known as the "butterfly effect", so called because of the title of a paper given by Edward Lorenz in 1972 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

A butterfly flaps its wings.
thanks for the read
steven

 

[mantis99]

I think this shows the fallacy of your trying to do these experiments. You claim that you are pivoting from about 2" in one case and 14" in the other case (with all else being the same) and making the OB in both cases on long shots. I haven't tried to figure out exactly how large the difference is in the angle resulting from these two pivots, and how much difference that produces in where the CB is sent down table, but I can see just visually on a table that it is a highly significant difference. The OB paths (if, indeed the CB even hits the OB on both trials) would be quite different.

First of all, the experiments weren't suppossed to be done by me. Second, I simply went down and applied the method with each bridge length and shot the shots. I did not even look at the OB once I moved to the CB, so I don't know how I could be "cheating". Please shoot the shots yourself before insulting me, and make sure you have the proper knowledge of the system to insure that you are doing it right. I specifically said that when I did it, it was not to be considered scientific as I just went down in a few minutes of spare time to see what would happen. I also noted a shot in which the bridge length did make a difference. Third, if I wanted to, I have more than enough education in scientific experiments to ensure that I could perform a satisfactory test.

Once again I will say this. This thread is to see what the truth is. I am not going to shoot any test shot with a bias in place that will influence my outcome. I gain nothing from falsifying my own results and convincing myself to use a bogus system. I will happily go shoot these shots again marking very specific placements to make sure I am very accurate about what is occurring and will report back again. Someone who replies as you have without trying the shot yourself must have a strong bias against the system, or not know how to properly perform the system. I am trying to be as objective as possible about the system and any test. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.

 

[AtLarge]

... I don't know how I could be "cheating". Please shoot the shots yourself before insulting me, and make sure you have the proper knowledge of the system ... Someone who replies as you have without trying the shot yourself must have a strong bias against the system, or not know how to properly perform the system. I am trying to be as objective as possible about the system and any test. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.

1. I didn't accuse you of cheating. I do think you may be doing something a bit different from what you think you are doing. Those are two different things.

2. I don't think I insulted you; at least I didn't intend to.

3. I have the knowledge of the system that the DVD provides. I embarked on learning about CTE several years ago, without bias. I am a truth seeker about the method, neither an opponent nor a proponent. I think if you do any research on my posts you might agree with that.

4. I did go to a table, as I mentioned -- and set up a difficult, long cut shot to the left. When I pivoted from left to right with a 2" bridge, the CB was aimed entirely to the right side of the OB. I had no need to actually hit the CB into space. When I pivoted from left to right with a 14" bridge, I did hit the shot. I missed, but came close.

Now, back to the issue at hand here -- pivoting with a 2" bridge versus a 14" bridge. You need know absolutely nothing about Stan's CTE method to know that these two pivots produce significantly different cue-stick aim lines. Just do this for me. Go to your table and place a cue down on the line where the cloth joins the rail (i.e., up off the bed of the table). This provides a nice, straight line. How grip the shaft 2" inches from the tip and pivot the tip 1/4" in either direction. Note, or make a mark, on the wood or cloth where the back of the butt winds up after the pivot. Now do the same thing holding the shaft 14" from the tip. Pivot in the same direction. Note where the back of the butt winds up. There is a pretty significant angle between those two final alignments of the cue, an angle significant enough to produce quite a difference in where an OB would be directed on long shots.

Do you not agree?

 

[AtLarge]

Just did a couple calculations. Those two pivots differ by about 6.1 degrees in the post-pivot alignment of the stick. That's pretty significant.

And, for example, a difference in angle of 6.1 degrees is a difference of 6.4 inches in CB position after the CB travels 5 feet.

 

[Ratta]

I think we are considering this part a given. Obviously nothing else matters if you can't hit the ball where you are aiming. You still need to be able to aim in the right spot though.

I am still surprised at the resistance this is receiving (not CTE, but a simple proposed test). It would not be hard or time consuming on either side. Instead of posting regarding the proposed test, everyone is posting on the validity or necessity of a system like CTE. Just from doing it on a number of shots, I am convinced that the system works. I just don't know if it works for all ranges of shots, and would like to find out.

@Mantis
Imo many here think the same way, that in a discussion about *if a system* works, that we expect that basics/fundamentals are given. I just wrote it down, because from that what i read sometimes in those threads i m not really sure about it...lol.

I never learnt a CTE based system. And i usualy don t jump into these discussions because i follow my own attitude:
And this is, that if i have no clue, or proper and seriously information about something, i just (try) to shut up here.
Furthermore i had some really nice and respectful discussions via email and skype with a very few guys about cte-based systems-i mean with ppl who are using it. Also have had video-conference, where a guy was so nice to shoot while discussing about it and try to show me as it works for him.
I respect this 100% - but as long as noone would teach/show/instruct it to me 1vs1 i would never give a statement about a cte-based system.
If someone would show me even JUST A FEW shots (no straight in, rofl), where he/she would send me a very detailed step-by-step description, how these ball would be made by using a cte-based system....i would definitley give it a try. And if it would work just on SOME positions, i would install them for sure into my arsenal and wouldn t hesitate to show/teach them to students.

This was one of the few things i wondered about- that noone wasn t able, or just didn t want to send me shot-examples (3-4 balls, for example thin-cuts, or just another one) how i have to make them by using the system. The most responses here were like "not able to show it just theoretically" or so. And this is the only point what is teasing me really.
I for myself can explain every single shot i teach- furthermore each system i m teaching could be perfectly described.
Perhaps i m too stupid to understand it from the stuff (very rare infos) i found- but without finding someone who s able to really show me i won t jump into a discussion about "it works/or it works not" because i have no theoretical fundamentals.
And you can believe me-i m a real knowledge-junkie and love to experiment with new things.

The system must have his good sides/points bc many guys here are swearing for it.
I cannot swear-bc i have no clue. In germany is not ONE instructor who teaches it- and in my opinion here are a few world-class instructors. I woudln t call myself a world-class instructor-and still not certified officially (takes f...ing long here, with many modules you have to run through-and was forced to go no further by healthy problems), but i can seriously say, that i understand what im talking about and can always describe it theoretically and even so show it in practice.

Still hoping for a detailed written description- step by step- where you (if all fundamentals already given) could easily follow this description to make a ball.


Both sides should also show a bit more respect for each other- it sometimes hurts me how ppl getting aggressive about a game we ALL love. Some guys should think about it-not worth to get aggressive during a discussion.


lg from overseas,

Ingo

 

[pablocruz]

mantis, I don't know exactly what shot angles the system produces for any given CB/OB separation. That would depend upon precisely identifying the exact steps that take you to the final cue stick alignment. But we don't need to do that for you to see the "holes" in the system. Stick with me here for a minute, and I'll try to get you to just visualize the holes.

Dr. Dave has analyzed Stan's DVD and concluded that it produces 6 distinct cut angles in each direction for a given CB/OB separation, or a total of 11 shot angles (without counting "straight" twice). One enthusiastic CTE advocate says, no, Stan's CTE actually produces just 5 cut angles in each direction, for a total of 9 shot angles.

Now, let's imagine you are standing at the edge of a table bed that stretches to infinity to the left, right, and straight ahead -- but it has no pockets. Imagine the CB near your side of this shot plane, and the OB a few feet out on the plane. Now let's run through all 9 or 11 of the shot prescriptions for Stan's CTE, putting the CB and OB back in the same place each time (ignore that we might not be able to retrieve them on our infinite table bed).

Now, note. Stan's CTE uses the location of the pocket only to choose which of the set of 9 or 11 alignment maneuvers to use for a given shot. So on the infinitely large, but pocketless, table bed for our experiment, we're just ignoring the choice of one of the 9 or 11, and we're going to do all of them with the same CB/OB set-up.

So we do all 9 or 11 of the shots and somehow trace exactly on our table bed the path of the OB after the collision. What do we see on the table bed? We see a fan-shaped array of 9 or 11 tracings, or lines, on the table bed. Observe that there are significant spaces between the tracings/lines, and that the farther out on our table bed you look, the larger is the space between the lines.

Now imagine you could drop down on top of our infinitely large table bed, with its 9 or 11 shot lines, a 50" x 100" rectangle with "pockets" in the appropriate places. You are free to align this drop-down rectangle in any manner you want to, just making sure the CB and OB are on the drop-down table each time. Imagine doing this over and over again, placing the drop-down table in different positions relative to the "shot-fan." Now suppose for each of these visual trials, we assume we have only one pocket (Pocket A) of interest on the drop-down table -- the same pocket every time.

What you can see (visualize) doing this is that sometimes one of the 9 or 11 shot lines from our traced shot fan leads directly into Pocket A (including "slop"). But other times absolutely none of the traced shot lines leads to Pocket A. In those cases, Pocket A is in the gap, or the hole, between two of the shot angles produced by Stan's CTE method.

This has been kind of a long way to say something that is quite simple, but I hope it may help a few people visualize what some of us are saying about the system not being "exact" -- some shots are in the gaps between the shot angles produced by the method.

The core relationship changes between CB-OB on every short, so in fact you have a new CTEL every shot! That's the key!! Once you slide into the proper 180 degree facing, it sets your bridge for you!! Quite simple!!

 

[AtLarge]

... Still hoping for a detailed written description- step by step- where you (if all fundamentals already given) could easily follow this description to make a ball. ...

Here is Dr. Dave's summary: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2867113&postcount=167

 

[AtLarge]

The core relationship changes between CB-OB on every short, so in fact you have a new CTEL every shot! That's the key!! Once you slide into the proper 180 degree facing, it sets your bridge for you!! Quite simple!!

On my infinitely large table bed (the post you quoted), the CB/OB relationship is identical throughout. The table bed has no pockets. Stan's method offers a discrete number of alignment choices. Choose all of them, one by one, putting the CB and OB back in the same place for each iteration. This produces a discrete number of OB tracks, with gaps between them. If the intended pocket happens to be in one of the gaps, and you still make the shot, you have adjusted something in determining the final line of the cue stick.

 

[pablocruz]

On my infinitely large table bed (the post you quoted), the CB/OB relationship is identical throughout. The table bed has no pockets. Stan's method offers a discrete number of alignment choices. Choose all of them, one by one, putting the CB and OB back in the same place for each iteration. This produces a discrete number of OB tracks, with gaps between them. If the intended pocket happens to be in one of the gaps, and you still make the shot, you have adjusted something in determining the final line of the cue stick.

I'm not trying to be harsh, I believe the CTEL is the key because as you say you have an infinitely large table bed, you also have an ifinite amount of CTEL Lines!! It changes with every shot!! I think everyone is keying in on ABC when they should be keying in on the CTEL!! In my opinion!!

 

[Ratta]

@AtLarge
thx for the link- already read this before.
But what Dave is writing there is the point where i have a problem, too. It s not defined,where the *bridge-hand* is placed exactly (pivot point).

thx a lot anyway,

Ingo

 

[pablocruz]

@AtLarge
thx for the link- already read this before.
But what Dave is writing there is the point where i have a problem, too. It s not defined,where the *bridge-hand* is placed exactly (pivot point).

thx a lot anyway,

Ingo

Dave has quite of bit of misinformation on his web-page!!

 

[Ratta]

This point has absolutley NOTHING to do with misinformations.
Several ppl, who are using cte-based systems told me that *would have to find out* what pivot-size would work. So this is for sure no misinformation at all.

And further i will not jump into this duel between pro-cte and no-cte users.
Everytime someone just showing up, that there is a undefined point which is not understandable postings like yours are coming up.
And a posting like your s will help for sure nobody...perhaps yourself, for what reason ever.

 

[pablocruz]

This point has absolutley NOTHING to do with misinformations.
Several ppl, who are using cte-based systems told me that *would have to find out* what pivot-size would work. So this is for sure no misinformation at all.

And further i will not jump into this duel between pro-cte and no-cte users.
Everytime someone just showing up, that there is a undefined point which is not understandable postings like yours are coming up.
And a posting like your s will help for sure nobody...perhaps yourself, for what reason ever.

I'm just stating my opinion...Good or Bad...It might help others, it might not.....Take it or leave it. I'm no world beater or mathematician!!