A CTE test!

[mantis99]

LOL. Care to add the detail for the "exact" steps highlighted above?

pj
chgo

I don't really get why you are so caught up with this. If you took any shot, how would you get your bridge hand down? It is the same here. Once you sight the lines that are correct for the shot, you look at the ball, and the center of the ball as you look down is the reference point. Now simply move your bridge hand into place as if you would for any other shot at the necessary distance, and put the tip 1/2 tip off of the refernce point. Now pivot your tip to center, and you are lined up. The important thing is not the specific steps to get there. It does not have to be robotic, as long as you end up in the right spot. The important thing is to sight the lines correctly, then get the tip 1/2 tip off of the center reference point you found after sighting the line. Of course your bridge hand has to be the right distance away from the ball, but that is not difficult. Your question can be answered with a question itself. If someone placed a red dot CB in front of you with the red dot facing you (at the center), then told you that you needed to place your cue tip 1/2 tip to the right of the dot and pivot back to it, how would you do it? Thus finding the red dot as a reference point is all you need to do. The exact method for getting your bridge hand in place to put the cue 1/2 tip from the center is not so important as just getting it to that exact spot is.

 

[mantis99]

Don't think of it as "cheating the pocket". Think of it as moving the entire pocket, such as the location of pocket's center moves slightly. It's really the same situation (you're moving the target slightly), but for some reason CTE advocates think of the two scenarios as completely different.

It is claimed that CTE is a "center pocket" system (which implies "exactness"). If the location of center pocket moves slightly, then the system should accommodate that change. But if the CB and OB locations stay exactly where they are, I don't see how CTE (or any other system that doesn't take into account the contact point of the OB) can adjust for that small change in center pocket location. Therefore, it can't be a "center pocket" system.

Of course it won't work if you move the pocket. The system gets you to where the pockets are, not some other random spot. Patrick claims it has nothing to do with the 2:1 ratio of the table, but I would assume still that that is the reason that it works. Change the pocket location and it will not go.

Someone please give me a shot described on Stan's grid that won't go with the system so I can go and shoot it. If you don't want to do it for any proof, do it for my own benefit. I will absolutely try my best to avoid any compensations, as I really want to know just how it works (subconscious or mathematical).

 

[mantis99]

There is no limiting factors about what shots can to be submitted in this post.

Now, you are putting constraints on what shots can be submitted for testing purposes, ie, shots that you don't have to reach for, or shots where choice of bridge placement is not a option.

Thanks for proving my point.

Wow, you really don't get what I am after here. I am not looking for an answer to whether or not certain shots will be more difficult because of the callenge that reach or balls in the way will create to performing the system. These things create obvious difficulties. I am looking for a shot that the math says can not be made. You posted my original message, but should read it yourself again. It is very specific about the shot being one that the math says will not work.

 

[mantis99]

You're not getting it.

For arguments sake, let's say you can move the pocket on the table. Take one particular cut shot where you know with absolute certainty CTE/Pro1 makes you hit center pocket. Now, move the pocket an inch such that the pocket's center (the target) is offset an inch. How can CTE/Pro1 compensate for this shift in the target given the EXACT SAME CB and OB placements?

Does it matter that it's impossible to have a table with a moving pocket? No. Keep the pocket right where it is and move both the CB and OB an inch in the same direction, and you'll have the exact same dilemma.

No you're not getting it. The system isn't suppossed to work that way. Why would it need to adjust for that? It is suppossed to be able to get you in line with the pockets as they are with one of a number of sight lines, not one inch over. Needing to be able to adjust for that makes no sense. The math (if it is a mathematically correct system) would be such that it would work on the table as it lay.

 

[mantis99]

LOL. Ya think?

What you're saying is true and essential to understanding CTE. But champ will never get it and neither will pablocruz, cookie man, JB, etc., etc. They're simply incapable of understanding. They don't even understand what's meant by "exact" in this context.

Hopefully it's useful to other readers and maybe that makes it worth repeating over and over to this wall of uncomprehending blank stares. Hoping the light will someday dawn on them is not a good bet.

pj
chgo

Understanding "exact" is very important here. Exact has nothing to do with the human element of this system. Exact as stated has to do with the mathematical foundation of the system. Assuming the steps are followed perfectly (which nothing done by a human can ever have that occur all the time), you will end up in line with the shot to center pocket the ball on any shot. That is what exact means. That the math is exact, not a persons ability to perform it exactly. You abviously feel that the math of the system does not leave you exactly in line on every shot. Other, who feel they can make all shots with the system disagree that your math could be correct. You of course say that they are making those shots due to subconscious adjustments to compensate for the lack of exactness of the math. So, either the math is exact, or it is not, that is all exactmeans in this case. Thus, since the math is not exact, please give me one shot described on stand grid that CTE can not make. I am not challenging you to find one, I am simply asking you to give me one so I can go shoot it at the table. If you read my posts, I have already admitted being wrong once, thus yo uhave no reason to think that I won't be looking the real truth.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Someone please give me a shot described on Stan's grid that won't go with the system so I can go and shoot it.

The system instructions aren't precise enough to define shots the same way for everybody, so nobody can say which shots will go and not go for you - that depends on how you personally follow the system instructions, which will probably be different from how other people do it.

The instructions are also not precise enough to ensure that the same player follows them the same way every time - we can easily think we're following them precisely but really be "fudging" them in lots of ways in order to make shots. (This is what is meant by "the system is not exact".)

It's possible for each of us to follow his own interpretation of the instructions in an "exact" way each time without fudging - so that an "A" shot with left pivot is performed exactly the same way every time and a "B" shot with right pivot is performed exactly the same way every time, and so on through all the combinations. Then even though we each have a different system, both of them are "exact" in their own way.

But if we perform the system alignments and pivots exactly the same way each time, then each of our exact systems can only define a handful of cuts in each direction (4 or 6 depending on who's counting), and even though your handful of cuts might be different from mine, we know there are not nearly enough cut angles for you or for me to make all the shots that will come up.

So either you can make all possible shots but the system isn't exact, or the system is exact but you can't make nearly enough shots. Take your pick.

Either way nobody can tell you which shots will go or won't go for you.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Assuming the steps are followed perfectly (which nothing done by a human can ever have that occur all the time), you will end up in line with the shot to center pocket the ball on any shot. That is what exact means.

See my previous post to see what I mean by "exact".

...the math is exact, not a persons ability to perform it exactly.

Forget "the math". Performing each system shot the same way each time (without "fudging") is the meaning of "exact" that applies here.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

That is an exact description, alright. The only problem is, it only works if every shot is a 30-degree cut.

Laying your bridge on the center-to-edge line and pointing your tip at centerball ensures that your entire cue is on the center-to-edge line and the CB's center is aimed directly at the OB's edge. This alignment can only produce a 30-degree cut.

LOL. Priceless.

pj
chgo

Really? I think you didn't read what I said. I didn't say I lay my CUE on the CTE line. I said I put my bridge hand on the CTE line. As to what I mean by bridge hand that has been covered elsewhere.

You need to be a little more exact with your questions. By the way you should also work on your syntax.

You said no one has produced an exact description. That is wrong. Many of us have produced exact descriptions of what we do and where to place the bridge. What you meant to say is that no one has produced a description of EXACTLY where the bridge goes for every shot with measurements so that you can use a ruler to determine where the v-notch in your bridge should be placed in relation to the cue ball. This would be true and is also not necessary as the system works without knowing an exact bridge hand position for every possible shot.

Just using the CTE method forces the bridge hand to the right location and that is the beauty of it. Because pool is measured by whether the ball goes down or not use of the CTE method produces a valid shot line more often for a wider range of shots and thus it is the most exact and precise method that a lot of us have tried.

How to play pool - find the shot line - shoot - ball goes in your were right - ball stays up you were wrong - simple metrics.

The problem is that you live on a different planet where people don't bother to try anything and who like to beat things up intellectually without experience.

Might work if you're smart enough, which you are not.

 

[rhyno]

Really? I think you didn't read what I said. I didn't say I lay my CUE on the CTE line. I said I put my bridge hand on the CTE line. As to what I mean by bridge hand that has been covered elsewhere.

You need to be a little more exact with your questions. By the way you should also work on your syntax.

You said no one has produced an exact description. That is wrong. Many of us have produced exact descriptions of what we do and where to place the bridge. What you meant to say is that no one has produced a description of EXACTLY where the bridge goes for every shot with measurements so that you can use a ruler to determine where the v-notch in your bridge should be placed in relation to the cue ball. This would be true and is also not necessary as the system works without knowing an exact bridge hand position for every possible shot.

Just using the CTE method forces the bridge hand to the right location and that is the beauty of it. Because pool is measured by whether the ball goes down or not use of the CTE method produces a valid shot line more often for a wider range of shots and thus it is the most exact and precise method that a lot of us have tried.

How to play pool - find the shot line - shoot - ball goes in your were right - ball stays up you were wrong - simple metrics.

The problem is that you live on a different planet where people don't bother to try anything and who like to beat things up intellectually without experience.

Might work if you're smart enough, which you are not.

nice post:wink:

 

[jsp]

Of course it won't work if you move the pocket.

Thanks for the admission that CTE is not an exact or center pocket system.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB:
I didn't say I lay my CUE on the CTE line. I said I put my bridge hand on the CTE line.

You don't put your cue on your bridge?

As to what I mean by bridge hand that has been covered elsewhere.

LOL. Now "bridge hand" means something special in CTE? This system is getting stranger and stranger, stranger.

The problem is that you live on a different planet

Yes, I've mentioned it to you before. We call it Earth. Come visit sometime.


pj
chgo

 

[mantis99]

Thanks for the admission that CTE is not an exact or center pocket system.

If a system is designed to put the ball center pocket with its steps, why in the world would someone assume that it should be able to put it 1" to the left without adjustment. That just doesn't even make logical sense.

 

[mantis99]

You don't put your cue on your bridge?



pj
chgo

Have you read my post on how to get into the shot? As long as you identify the center of the CB as you need to (using the proper sight lines), the rest is fairly easy. At least as easy as getting into any other shot. Once you have that reference point, you just have to move your bridge hand into position as you would for any other shot, only this time it is to place your cue tip 1/2 tip off of that center point, then pivot back to center. That really is not that complicated or difficult. In fact, if someone can't do it, they will have trouble moving into any shot.

Once a person learns to sight the lines repeatedly, the rest is simple. I have posted a more objective way to do this that will work for each person already, allowing different people to compensate for differences in how their eyes see things.

When I first started trying this, I was terribly frustrated. After sighting the lines as described on the dvd, I would move into the shot as I thought the DVD said to, pivot to center and shoot, and I was missing consistently. Because I thought I was seeing things as described, I assumed it must be how I was coming into the shot that was wrong. I realized that was not true when I tried some straight in shots, and saw that I was way off after the pivot. I realized that I was not coming into the shot wrong, but that my original sighting was wrong. I then made adjustments to my sighting reference points until I was straight in on straight in shots after the pivot. All of a sudden I was sighting, placing the tip 1/2" off center, pivoting, firing and the balls were going in. Making the corresponding adjustment for thin cuts allowed me to correctly perform the sight lines for those shots also.

The system is not difficult once you see how to sight the lines correctly for the way you see, so that you get into the same line that Stan describes. Once you have that, the rest is simple and repeatable with practice. My frustration with the system is based on the difficulty in identifying the correct sight lines and pivot quickly for each shot. Also, it definately takes practice to sight things at varying distances.

If you do what I said to determine how YOU need to line things up to be correct after the pivot, then you will end up in the same line that Stan will using his sight lines. Thus it should be the reference points for the sight lines that change for each person (if needed for their visual perception), not the resultant line of aim. Fortunatley, it is very easy for each person to figure out those reference points for themselves.

 

[Jal]

Understanding "exact" is very important here. Exact has nothing to do with the human element of this system. Exact as stated has to do with the mathematical foundation of the system.

Okay, but we can't apply the math unless the system is well defined. The descriptions I've seen of how to use the edge-to-A,B,C and CTE lines leave much to be desired. Just getting your eyes and body in some position, guided by those lines, does not specify where the cue is to be pointed before the pivot. For instance, take the case of cut angles in the range of about 15 to 30 degrees (edge-to-B and CTE lines as guides). Here are some possible interpretations of how the cue should be aligned prior to pivoting.

The first two (figs. 1a and 1b) show the cue aligned parallel (in actuality) to the edge-to-B line. The two diagrams are exactly the same constructions using Google's Sketchup, but seen from the shooter's perspective (roughly), and then from above (non-perspective view).





The next one (fig. 2a) shows the cue aligned apparently parallel to the edge-to-B line, that is, in the image plane of the eye (field of view). Figure 2b shows the actual cue alignment in the non-perspective view.






Figure 3a shows the cue aligned parallel to a line which splits the difference between the edge-to-B and CTE lines in the image plane (field of view), figure 3b the actual alignment (see next post - limit of 5 files per post).



These are three "natural" interpretations, I think, but others are possible. Obviously, you'll produce different cueball directions - and therefore cut angles - depending on which one you employ. And with the last two, where 'parallel' is judged in the field of view, alignment also depends on where your head is positioned and where your eyes are "pointing" (orientation of the optic axis).

In order to look at the mathematics underlying it, these things have to be specified. As far as I know, they're very loose ends as the system now stands. That's not to say that the math will contradict the logical arguments presented by Patrick, Jsp, Atlarge, etc. If you clearly define the cue's pre-pivot alignments, because they don't take the more-or-less continuous nature of the required cut angles into account, you're going to have a paucity of generated cueball directions. In the case of cut angles from about 15 to 30 degrees, you'll only see two for a given CB-OB separation distance, one for a left cut and one for a right cut.

Jim

 

[Jal]

Jim

 

[JB Cases]

You don't put your cue on your bridge?


LOL. Now "bridge hand" means something special in CTE? This system is getting stranger and stranger, stranger.


Yes, I've mentioned it to you before. We call it Earth. Come visit sometime.


pj
chgo

The earth you live on is not the same one that the rest of us live on. You're in your own little flat earth world. If you had lived in 1400 then you would have been one of those people claiming the earth is flat and refusing to actually undertake any of the experiments advocated by the people who said it's a sphere.

And yes, bridge hand means something different than cue line. Put your cue down along this line is different than put your bridge hand down on this line. Of course I outlined this a month ago and have since done detailed video explaining it - none of which means anything to you because you are now hung up on the word "exact".

No matter what you will not take this table even if someone put a gun to your head. You know that you do this for the entertainment value and nothing else. We talked about this in your car. You're addicted to the drama and so am I. It wouldn't matter to you if Efren Reyes walked up to you and said 'Patricia, I use CTE and it's exact and preceeese, please jsut try it......'

You would stand there and argue with Efren over the meaning of exact instead of trying to emulate his motions to find out for yourself how he could get exact and precise out of some steps you don't think can be.

So basically, you are just contrary for the sport of it. Broaden your horizons and realize that there is more to the world than your narrow definitions.

 

[jsp]

If a system is designed to put the ball center pocket with its steps, why in the world would someone assume that it should be able to put it 1" to the left without adjustment.

If this "adjustment" isn't part of the system, then how can anyone call it a center ball system?

That just doesn't even make logical sense.

You're telling me.

 

[duckie]

Since the statement has been made that CTE works on all shots, I call bullshit until a CTE user put up video or explains fully how to do those three shots I posted.

I don't care what you write, show the world on some shots that really test ones skill. Those shot I made using GB. I posted a carom in another thread where I carom a ball off two other balls and made it first time. Again with GB.

Put up or shut up about CTE being able to be used on all shots.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Since the statement has been made that CTE works on all shots, I call bullshit until a CTE user put up video or explains fully how to do those three shots I posted.

I don't care what you write, show the world on some shots that really test ones skill. Those shot I made using GB. I posted a carom in another thread where I carom a ball off two other balls and made it first time. Again with GB.

Put up or shut up about CTE being able to be used on all shots.

Pah-leeze. CTE guys are the only ones who EVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER post videos of themselves running out, making balls, explaining stuff, whatever. It's the non-CTE guys who call bullshit from up in a tree somewhere who are never seen by anyone, ever. You, PJ, Dr. Dave, whoever can all go through Colin's potting test or show us how many you can run in 14.1 or how many you can run from the break in 1P one time. Let's see your video.

Record yourself shooting Colin's shooting test and post your video and then we'll go from there. Only CTE guys have EVER posted a video, outside of RiverCity and Colin himself (if I recall).

HERE:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=122451&highlight=potting+test

 

[mikepage]

Pah-leeze. CTE guys are the only ones who EVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER post videos of themselves running out, making balls, [...]

John -

I'd like to go back to the relationship between placing the bridge hand and the final line of the stick.

Let me just ask a question about placing the bridge. I think of placing the bridge as kinda like driving a nail through the cue and into the slate at the bridge length. The stick can pivot in all kinds of directions from there, but the part of the stick that's right at the bridge can't go anywhere.

Do you agree with this?