A Public Statement

[mohrt]

In other words, it works subjectively.





In other words, it doesn't work objectively.



So it's like every other aiming method.



pj <- where have I heard this before?

chgo

Hi Patrick. Why did I dive back into this dog fight? LOL

I’m not about to argue of the semantics of objectivity. But here is the bottom line. I visually align the edge of the CB to quarters on the OB on every shot. To me that’s objective in the sense that I can consistently pocket balls with a few well defined visual targets. Of course there is more than that line to the system, but’s imho it’s the fundamental component that makes it “objective”.

Have a good one.

 

[mohrt]

Works for all shots............so than CTE can be used to send the CB two rails then contact a OB?



How are the rails used in aiming with CTE?

Hi duckie. I thinks it’s pretty clear by now that CTE applies to shots into pockets. It’s a tool, not a magic bullet for every type of shot.

Above when I said all shots I’m referring to all angles, as English had defined in the previous post.

 

[mohrt]

With all due respect, you are portraying a false image of the reality.

If pocketing balls consistently using the edge of the CB is a false image of reality, then leave me in my dream

 

[ENGLISH!]

The truth is applying the knowledge at the table and observe if balls go in or not. It’s kind of hard to explain away that kind of evidence. Apparently you didn’t see Stan, you didn’t obtain either DVD, and you’ve concluded through your own logic that it cannot work.

Like I said, I know it works, I apply it all the time. Trying to convince me otherwise is like convincing me the earth is flat.

I surmise that this is directed to me.

I have made another post to better explain that I was not predisposed that it is not what it is said to be.

Trying to convince anyone with any knowledge of science or even an employed common sense that "IT" IS what "IT" is said to be... is like trying to convince them that the earth is flat.

Sorry, Monty. It is Science that tells the truth.

Please see my reply to Cookie where I relayed what another member PMd me about Cookie's Scientific challenge. That member laid it out in a rather concise manner.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

A big welcome back, English.
I for one look forward to the knowledge drops you post. We all have disagreements, and it is within those disagreements that our thoughts are pushed and stretched to the limits--resulting in a deeper understanding of the game, no matter what side of the issue we fall on.

In other news, Corey Deuel had been putting out short training videos and in this one he pokes a big hole in CTE, then goes on to advocate for his ghost ball-like aiming technique....

https://youtu.be/ewqybrOteN0

And here is a second clip on aiming....

https://youtu.be/xm6K-ACb_hM

Thanks Kid.

I hope Mgt. is keeping track of those who have & are welcoming me back vs the 3, 4, or 5 who want me banned again.

I'll take a look at those.

How is your game? How are you "playing" The "Sport"?

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

A big welcome back, English.
I for one look forward to the knowledge drops you post. We all have disagreements, and it is within those disagreements that our thoughts are pushed and stretched to the limits--resulting in a deeper understanding of the game, no matter what side of the issue we fall on.

In other news, Corey Deuel had been putting out short training videos and in this one he pokes a big hole in CTE, then goes on to advocate for his ghost ball-like aiming technique....

https://youtu.be/ewqybrOteN0

And here is a second clip on aiming....

https://youtu.be/xm6K-ACb_hM

Kid,

What Corey said near the end of the 2nd. vid. is basically what I said when I was 13 or 14. I was introduced to the game by my Dad when I was 13. He explained Ghost Ball without ever saying the phrase Ghost Ball.

Not too long after, I tried Fractional & took it to the 1/8s. It was not enough even for an 8' table with sizable pockets. Like Corey said, What am I going to do? Start thinking & trying to see 5 /16? So... I went to Equal & Opposite overlap with no fractional designations.

At my age & with my eyesight I probably should go back to focusing on Egual & Opposite overlaps.

Take Care & Shoot Well.

 

[mohrt]

I surmise that this is directed to me.

I have made another post to better explain that I was not predisposed that it is not what it is said to be.

Trying to convince anyone with any knowledge of science or even an employed common sense that "IT" IS what "IT" is said to be... is like trying to convince them that the earth is flat.

Sorry, Monty. It is Science that tells the truth.

Please see my reply to Cookie where I relayed what another member PMd me about Cookie's Scientific challenge. That member laid it out in a rather concise manner.

Best Wishes.

I’ll just repeat myself. I apply the system at the table, I consistently pocket balls. I’d say from a science standpoint thats pretty hard evidence to defy. The only way it doesn’t work is if I’m lying or cheating the system in some way. I have no reason to do that. It works. I think you are too wrapped up in the explanation of the system, rather than if it works or not. Granted it’s an unorthodox way to aim balls. The instructions have evolved over the years. I think the upcoming book and truth series will clarify quite a lot.

When I use the system at the table I’m using very defined targets (ball edges and quarters) to repeatedly pocket balls. To me that’s objective. No guess work. Better than any previous method of pocketing balls. That’s good enough for me.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I’ll just repeat myself. I apply the system at the table, I consistently pocket balls. I’d say from a science standpoint thats pretty hard evidence to defy. The only way it doesn’t work is if I’m lying or cheating the system in some way. I have no reason to do that. It works. I think you are too wrapped up in the explanation of the system, rather than if it works or not. Granted it’s an unorthodox way to aim balls. The instructions have evolved over the years. I think the upcoming book and truth series will clarify quite a lot.

When I use the system at the table I’m using very defined targets (ball edges and quarters) to repeatedly pocket balls. To me that’s objective. No guess work. Better than any previous method of pocketing balls. That’s good enough for me.

Monty,

You are at will to "believe" what ever you wish to believe. Your believing it does not make it reality.

Here is what another member recently PMd me. It is a rather simple & concise explanation.


… because they are scientically ignorant. Somehow they think they can get two slightly different perceptions from an identical set of visuals. For example, if the cb is 24" from the ob, the ETA and CTE visuals will give you a unique perspective of ccb, and from this perspective is where you do the offset pivot or sweep. No deying that.

However, ANYTIME the distance between the balls is 24", and you use the exact same visuals (ETA and CTE) you will get the exact same ccb perspective. They actually believe the placement of the balls on the table will allow for some variance in
this perspective, but it's simply not possible. The only variables used in getting a particular ccb perception are as follows: Two visual lines between cb and ob. The only thing that can alter this perception (when using the same visuals each time) is the distance between the balls. When the distance changes, the resulting perception changes. When the distance remains the same, the resulting perception remains the same. It's impossible to prove anything to someone who does not understand this.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I’ll just repeat myself. I apply the system at the table, I consistently pocket balls. I’d say from a science standpoint thats pretty hard evidence to defy. The only way it doesn’t work is if I’m lying or cheating the system in some way. I have no reason to do that. It works. I think you are too wrapped up in the explanation of the system, rather than if it works or not. Granted it’s an unorthodox way to aim balls. The instructions have evolved over the years. I think the upcoming book and truth series will clarify quite a lot.

When I use the system at the table I’m using very defined targets (ball edges and quarters) to repeatedly pocket balls. To me that’s objective. No guess work. Better than any previous method of pocketing balls. That’s good enough for me.

Right! That's it in the most SIMPLE terms.

1. What top pro players since Mosconi's era through TODAY ever talked about the importance of science in their usage to make balls and become the winners they were? I've never heard a pro player talk about it, write a book about it, or teach it.

2. Again, the same time frame and pros. Doesn't matter what aiming system they used if any, how many were over the ball thinking and adjusting with a laundry list of specific factors like spin throw, CIT, deflection, skid, swerve etc.in scientific math calculations to take it all into consideration for their impact point on the OB and impact point on the CB.

3. How in the hell does anyone adjust for all that and make 3 balls in a row? Would a 30 second shot clock come close to being enough? The only place this occurs is with hack amateurs on pool forums! I could care less what anybody thinks about me using a so called flawed unscientific system. MY CHOICE! MY GAME! MY SUCCESS OR MY FAILURE! KEEP YOUR NOSES OUT OF MY BUSINESS!

4. There have been many systems developed over the last 75 years but none of them have really come under the attack about explaining the science except for one.
CTE and it all started on RSB by so called science geeks because it was the only argument they had and still do.

5. The effectiveness of any aiming system is performance based and it can vary with individual users. That's the ONLY thing that matters. If it works, use it. If it doesn't don't use it. Also don't forget to STFU if it isn't for those who don't succeed with it.

6. I never heard anyone jump on 90/90 regarding the science behind it. When Ron Vitello was alive he would have busted every science geek down to their last penny.
It was even more "far out" than CTE. But also deadly in the right hands of knowledgeable users. It would be impossible to break it down scientifically by anyone. IT WAS PERFORMANCE BASED AND ALL THAT MATTERS!

7. If science geeks want the science behind an aiming system, figure it out yourselves. That's what turns you on. We don't give a rat's a$$.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Does anyone know of another aiming method that the sales person asserts is an "objective" method?

 

[BC21]

A big welcome back, English.
I for one look forward to the knowledge drops you post. We all have disagreements, and it is within those disagreements that our thoughts are pushed and stretched to the limits--resulting in a deeper understanding of the game, no matter what side of the issue we fall on.

In other news, Corey Deuel had been putting out short training videos and in this one he pokes a big hole in CTE, then goes on to advocate for his ghost ball-like aiming technique....

https://youtu.be/ewqybrOteN0

And here is a second clip on aiming....

https://youtu.be/xm6K-ACb_hM

I like how he says to use the cb-ob overlap to determine the proper aim. He even holds the balls up to show what the overlaps look like from the cb perspective. He says it's ghostball, but he is actually looking beyond the ghostball to the ob, as a backdrop, in order to produce the correct fractional overlap needed to pocket the ball. Instead of labeling the fractions, he simply stresses recognizing what the overlaps look like. This is exactly what I've described too many times!

The thing is, he is wrong about the limitations of labeling fractional aim points. Why stop your brain at eighths? If you can visualize a 1/4 of a ball, you can visualize 1/8. If you can visualize 1/8, you can visualize 1/16. But why limit yourself to that. If you can visualize 1/16, then visualizing 1/32 isn't going to be that difficult for your brain to recognize. The way he is explaining it, your brain is going to have to be doing this anyway, so why not pay attention and label what you see. By consciously paying attention known reference points (fractional pieces of the ob) you can program your brain to zero in on the correct cb-ob relationship (overlap) in a much quicker time frame than using pure trial and error over and over.

My point is, when Corey says 1/8 is the best you can do fractionally, what in the world does he think his brain is doing when he bends down over a ball and estimates which cb-ob overlap is needed? His brain is looking at a fractional relationship based on the diameter/width of the cb/ob. That's fractional aiming, regardless of whether or not he's labeling the overlaps. In order to become proficient at recognizing the needed overlaps, it's a good idea to know exactly where you are aiming to produce each angled shot you shoot. Then you learn to aim thinner or thicker as needed. Eventually you are no longer thinking in terms of overlaps or fractions...you're just recognizing the cb-ob relationship needed to pocket the ball, just like he is suggesting.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Hi Patrick. Why did I dive back into this dog fight? LOL

I’m not about to argue of the semantics of objectivity. But here is the bottom line. I visually align the edge of the CB to quarters on the OB on every shot. To me that’s objective in the sense that I can consistently pocket balls with a few well defined visual targets. Of course there is more than that line to the system, but’s imho it’s the fundamental component that makes it “objective”.

Have a good one.

Every aiming system has "fundamental components" that are objective. You've successfully made the word meaningless.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

If pocketing balls consistently using the edge of the CB is a false image of reality, then leave me in my dream

That is not to what I was referring.

I was referring to how you characterized me & others as being predisposed to it not working & you & others not being unable to explain matters sufficiently enough to convince those predisposed to "IT" not working.

I was not so predisposed. Seeing Mr. Shuffett's 5 shots video on "Perception" is what solidified it not being as declared & that there would never be anything forth coming to make it as declared.

I should have known from the beginning but my brain went dead when assaulted with the promise of a totally objective aiming system.

Is that what Mr. Shuffett's CTE is..."pocketing balls consistently using the edge of the CB"?

I've been doing that ever since I went to Equal & Opposite Overlap before I was 14.5 years old.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

If pocketing balls consistently using the edge of the CB is a false image of reality, then leave me in my dream

Monty,

Have you read what I posted that another member PMd me?

Do you understand what was said there?

 

[cookie man]

Monty,

Have you read what I posted that another member PMd me?

Do you understand what was said there?

I just shot it full of holes with your own words.

 

[ENGLISH!]

To the General Readership,

Please make you own determinations as to what is scientifically possible & what is not. Use your common sense.

PJ has said it rather well. AZB should be a place where those who play the game can come to get truthful information or at least information that is not scientifically known to be false.

Best Wishes to ALL & Shoot Well.

 

[mohrt]

Monty,



Have you read what I posted that another member PMd me?



Do you understand what was said there?

Don’t think I don’t understand exactly where you come from. I’ve been through all of it too. Skepticism and all. Except I threw caution to the wind and took it to the table for a couple hours a day for a few weeks. Go through the motions, see what happens. Then things started clicking. Went from there.

So now thinking pure logically you say that a CB OB relationship is always static regardless of where you put them I the table. If that were so, then I’d miss balls by simply moving them. If the system worked with protractors and angles then that would all be true. But it’s not the experience at the table.

I’m really done beating a dead horse with you guys, let’s wait for the truth series and book, then revisit.

 

[cookie man]

Don’t think I don’t understand exactly where you come from. I’ve been through all of it too. Skepticism and all. Except I threw caution to the wind and took it to the table for a couple hours a day for a few weeks. Go through the motions, see what happens. Then things started clicking. Went from there.

So now thinking pure logically you say that a CB OB relationship is always static regardless of where you put them I the table. If that were so, then I’d miss balls by simply moving them. If the system worked with protractors and angles then that would all be true. But it’s not the experience at the table.

I’m really done beating a dead horse with you guys, let’s wait for the truth series and book, then revisit.

"Those points at the outer edges of the width/diameter are always there. If you move to the right, changing your perspective, it's just another simple circle, and the outer edges are redefined from that perspective."

 

[ENGLISH!]

Don’t think I don’t understand exactly where you come from. I’ve been through all of it too. Skepticism and all. Except I threw caution to the wind and took it to the table for a couple hours a day for a few weeks. Go through the motions, see what happens. Then things started clicking. Went from there.

So now thinking pure logically you say that a CB OB relationship is always static regardless of where you put them I the table. If that were so, then I’d miss balls by simply moving them. If the system worked with protractors and angles then that would all be true. But it’s not the experience at the table.

I’m really done beating a dead horse with you guys, let’s wait for the truth series and book, then revisit.

Monty,

Have you read what that other member PMd me that I have put out. Please read it & "think" about it. You seem to be full of & stuck in confirmation bias.

Why did it not work right of the box?

Mr. Shuffett has already said that he did not go into the "Why". So, there will be nothing forthcoming on that in The Book & I doubt in the videos either.

You said that you can show it but it can't really be conveyed in text over the internet.

Does that not also mean that it can not be conveyed in the text of a book?

There were a couple of members who relayed to me that they spent nearly 2 years trying to get it to work. One of them made some changes & then seemed to be fairly happy with what he was doing... but he was no longer following the directions. That is what I have heard rather much of. I think there is a prominent member here who somewhat praise it, but when he details what he does, he too has modified the Prescription.

I hope that if a light comes on for you that it does not mess up your success.

Regards & Best Wishes.

 

[DTL]

However, ANYTIME the distance between the balls is 24", and you use the exact same visuals (ETA and CTE) you will get the exact same ccb perspective. .

Grab a chair and sit down along the long rail looking straight down the head string line. But first set a piece of chalk on the 3rd diamond on the opposite side of the table (middle diamond between corner and side pocket). Now set a piece of chalk on each side of the the first piece. Then place the CB on the head string one diamond away from the pieces of chalk.

So while sitting, you should try to be looking right down the head string line with both eyes open, straight through the CB, and hopefully see most or some of the center of the middle piece of chalk. While doing this, aim with your index finger trying your hardest to use both eyes equally……if your doing this right you’ll eventually see two index fingers with the CB and center piece of chalk in the middle of the two fingers (this may be difficult for severely right-eye/left-eye dominant players).

Once you see two fingers and the centers of the CB and center piece of chalk are dead center between them, keep your head very still and alternate between closing one eye then the other. What will happen is when you close the left eye you’ll be looking straight through the cue ball at the left piece of chalk…..and vice versa when closing the right eye. Question: when doing this are you looking through 3 different centers of the CB …..one with both eyes open, one with only left eye open, and one with only right eye open? If yes, you're doing this with the same CB/head position.

Take a shot where the OB is one diamond each down the short and long rails and the CB is one diamond down the short rail and two diamonds down the long rail…….basically a short left cut into the corner pocket, close to 1/2 ball hit (?)…very close to the shot Corey set up in his DVD (the one referenced in a recent thread). If you move both balls toward the end rail one inch at a time the cut with get more severe and eventually you have a near 90 degree cut when the OB gets close to the rail. As this happens the CP to CP changes. For many people when this happens, they’ll use one eye more than the other……maybe mostly the right eye (for right eye dominant player) for the first shot but as the shot gets closer to a 90 degree left cut, the left eye starts taking over to better see the two CPs line up (vice versa for cut to the right). As this happens, same thing is going on in the above situation above with the 3 pieces of chalk. This may be what Gene Albrecht teaches with his Perfect Aim in terms of how the eyes work with cuts to right and left.

Anyway, my point is with same CB/OB relationship and distance , when one eye takes over, you can be seeing different CB centers and perhaps different OB edges, too....even when both eyes are open. And perhaps, probably in most cases, without the player even knowing it.