A real CTE shot for you to try.

[JB Cases]

What do you think it should inform you of?

See my post of mohrt's video for my reply.

What's hilarious to me is that Mohrt GAVE you a video where he described what he is doing and showed you his body motions so that you OR ANYONE can inspect it and ask questions like "why did you do x at 2:28?" and YOU gave us 5 minutes of you talking about what you claim you did with NOTHING there that anyone could analyze and you THINK that you did something significant.

I want to believe that you're sincere but honestly you're not doing much to advance your cause.

When I see Mohrt's video I think COOL let me learn to do that. When I see yours I think what is this guy talking about, nothing to see here.

 

[JB Cases]

I think you are doing the massaging here, but ok.

1. The whole declaration around "CTE works on a 2x1 table" means that using CTE you can find a NISL connection to most, if not all pockets on the table, for a given CB/OB position, with a CTE perception and pivot. This can be demonstrated. It does NOT say anything about what might happen if a rail is missing. I'm not going to make assumptions about what happens on a non-2x1 table, nor should you massage that statement into something other than what it is.

2. I've been extremely clear on my interpretation of CTE and CIT. Again, I'm clear about what I'm doing at the table. CTE is an aim-line connection tool. Stan claims there is a built-in overcut for CIT. I don't think it is a magic bullet at all. I've made my statement about it multiple times.

3. Again I've stated this before, and I guess I'll state it again. I'm not sugar coating anything. Our perception, standing at a table behind the CB/OB on a table surface, does not work like 2D lines, lasers and protractors. 2D drawings are useful for instruction, but at the table we see with depth. Our eyes focus on objects with two lines of sight that converge. So although the AL and SL are drawn on paper as parallel lines, that is not how we perceive them. When we "stand behind the AL so that we an also see the SL", it is not a 2D parallel laser lines our eyes are looking down. However, we have the ability to find the "perfect perception", meaning, the AL and SL look perfect from one and only one correct CTE offset. It is repeatable and consistent. It takes practice to familiarize yourself with it.

4. I'm not selling anything. I don't make a dime from CTE. I do however, use it with a high degree of success. I do know it works, I do know I look at the perceptions with the AL and SL and find the NISL that connects to the intended pocket. If I didn't, I wouldn't back it up. Am I a pro? No. I don't play pool for a living. It is a hobby. But CTE sure helps make it more enjoyable.

I think what would be most helpful is if we take one specific shot setup and perception, and work it until there are no more questions asked, then possibly move onto a new shot. That was the original intent of this thread. That said, I didn't fully realize I had setup a shot where its a dead half-ball hit to the corner. That was not intentional. So we started adding a few shots where the OB and CB are backed up, and that is fine. So let's concentrate on these few shots, and see where our execution of them differs until we can all agree that CTE works, or maybe we discover it just can't be done for everyone. At least with instruction over the internet. It's not easy not being right there.

You're so far ahead of these guys and likely will remain so forever.

 

[Dan White]

What's hilarious to me is that Mohrt GAVE you a video where he described what he is doing and showed you his body motions so that you OR ANYONE can inspect it and ask questions like "why did you do x at 2:28?" and YOU gave us 5 minutes of you talking about what you claim you did with NOTHING there that anyone could analyze and you THINK that you did something significant.

I want to believe that you're sincere but honestly you're not doing much to advance your cause.

When I see Mohrt's video I think COOL let me learn to do that. When I see yours I think what is this guy talking about, nothing to see here.

Glad I could give you a chuckle. Laughter is good for you. What you are missing is context. You are so busy writing novels here that you don't slow down and think about what is going on. If you had been following this thread you'd know that I was having trouble understanding how to see one line with one eye and another line with another eye. Even PJ got into that discussion. That's the reason for the laser and was the main purpose of doing the video. It was intended to be part of an ongoing conversation. I could just as easily have described what I did in a paragraph instead of doing a video but I thought the visual of the laser line was interesting and would spark more conversation. Sorry if that was too boring for you.

As far as inspecting mohrt's video, well, there's only so many hours in the day but I did do that and posted it above, which I assume you have seen by now. How do you respond?

 

[JB Cases]

Glad I could give you a chuckle. Laughter is good for you. What you are missing is context. You are so busy writing novels here that you don't slow down and think about what is going on. If you had been following this thread you'd know that I was having trouble understanding how to see one line with one eye and another line with another eye. Even PJ got into that discussion. That's the reason for the laser and was the main purpose of doing the video. It was intended to be part of an ongoing conversation. I could just as easily have described what I did in a paragraph instead of doing a video but I thought the visual of the laser line was interesting and would spark more conversation. Sorry if that was too boring for you.

As far as inspecting mohrt's video, well, there's only so many hours in the day but I did do that and posted it above, which I assume you have seen by now. How do you respond?

I will let mohrt speak for himself.

Again you missed the point completely. The point is that mohrt, Stan, myself and others give you detailed videos in service to proof of concept and you give five minutes of nothing happening while you tell us what you did.

Perhaps you should follow the Danny Smith protocol, uncut video or it didn't happen.

You think I was bored? No, I was disappointed, again. You're not a serious participant in this conversation. The couple videos you have done are inadequate to support your points.

 

[Dan White]

I will let mohrt speak for himself.

I would have thought there was a simple, no brainer answer, but OK hopefully we'll hear back from mohrt.

Again you missed the point completely. The point is that mohrt, Stan, myself and others give you detailed videos in service to proof of concept and you give five minutes of nothing happening while you tell us what you did.

Perhaps you should follow the Danny Smith protocol, uncut video or it didn't happen.

You think I was bored? No, I was disappointed, again. You're not a serious participant in this conversation. The couple videos you have done are inadequate to support your points.

Not sure how more clear I could be. The videos you guys present are of the nature "here's what the steps are." I don't believe those steps lead to the results you get so I'm more interested in what is actually happening. I'm following along with mohrt as best I can, asking questions along the way and leaving an open mind that I'm doing something wrong. Sorry if you are disappointed. I think this thread is a great idea by mohrt. I'm interested in the explanation as to why mohrt's NISL is so much farther away from where the other NISL's are because the way I've been doing it the tip placement for the NISL is all in the same place. This is the crux of the issue.

 

[cookie man]

I would have thought there was a simple, no brainer answer, but OK hopefully we'll hear back from mohrt.


Not sure how more clear I could be. The videos you guys present are of the nature "here's what the steps are." I don't believe those steps lead to the results you get so I'm more interested in what is actually happening. I'm following along with mohrt as best I can, asking questions along the way and leaving an open mind that I'm doing something wrong. Sorry if you are disappointed. I think this thread is a great idea by mohrt. I'm interested in the explanation as to why mohrt's NISL is so much farther away from where the other NISL's are because the way I've been doing it the tip placement for the NISL is all in the same place. This is the crux of the issue.

He shot a couple 30 inside visual shots. He just happened to come down a tiny bit more on the right on the last one, no big deal. Then he still did as the system dictates by coming into center cue ball position. And shot the shots from the center cue ball position. You are trying to nitpik something that just isn't there.

 

[cookie man]

Let me ask a question. I watched this video carefully and I notice something at the 2:58 mark. In every other shot in this video you put the tip near the cb and then find the NISL and reposition the tip. On the first three shots the tip moves hardly at all. In the last shot where the ob is one diamond down table you make a large shift of the tip from what looks like center ball or even a tad right of center to the final NISL that you choose. Watch the video. The tip shift occurs between 2:58 and 2:59, very quickly. What makes you shift the tip so much in this case? Everything is exactly the same except now the pocket, which you can see, is at a more acute angle. If you are doing the same thing in each of these examples then why is there this large shift of the tip in the last example and not so much on the other shots that are only half diamond deviations from the original shot?

You have to go full screen to see the tip, or you can also watch how the butt of the cue moves over to the right.

He shot a couple 30 inside visual shots. He just happened to come down a tiny bit more on the right on the last one, no big deal. Then he still did as the system dictates by coming into center cue ball position. And shot the shots from the center cue ball position. You are trying to nitpik something that just isn't there.

 

[mohrt]

Let me ask a question. I watched this video carefully and I notice something at the 2:58 mark. In every other shot in this video you put the tip near the cb and then find the NISL and reposition the tip. On the first three shots the tip moves hardly at all. In the last shot where the ob is one diamond down table you make a large shift of the tip from what looks like center ball or even a tad right of center to the final NISL that you choose. Watch the video. The tip shift occurs between 2:58 and 2:59, very quickly. What makes you shift the tip so much in this case? Everything is exactly the same except now the pocket, which you can see, is at a more acute angle. If you are doing the same thing in each of these examples then why is there this large shift of the tip in the last example and not so much on the other shots that are only half diamond deviations from the original shot?

You have to go full screen to see the tip, or you can also watch how the butt of the cue moves over to the right.

When I place my cue on the table I'm not "aiming" at anything yet, I'm simply placing the cue on the table nearby where my eyes are doing the work, basically the 1/2 tip offset position. This is purely by habit, I like to bring my cue tip into that position because it is a very natural pivoting move to CCB once my eyes are then focused on CCB through stepping. So here is the process: ball address, see AL and SL, then move into fulls stance following the SL all the way in. At the same time, I'm bringing my cue into a 1/2 tip offset. At full stance, my eyes are still doing all the work, cue not in aiming position yet. If I want, I can double check the SL and AL at this point, make sure they are perfect. Now I turn my eye focus to CCB (through stepping) and THAT is the moment I'm pivoting/moving my cue onto the NISL.

When I'm not in "instruction mode", I can sweep my cue right onto the NISL as I come to full stance, as all these steps can be done in one fell unconscious movement. Moving into a 1/2 offset (left or right) also helps me focus on the correct CCB (which stepping also provides on its own.)

 

[Low500]

When I place my cue on the table I'm not "aiming" at anything yet, I'm simply placing the cue on the table nearby where my eyes are doing the work, basically the 1/2 tip offset position. This is purely by habit, I like to bring my cue tip into that position because it is a very natural pivoting move to CCB once my eyes are then focused on CCB through stepping. So here is the process: ball address, see AL and SL, then move into fulls stance following the SL all the way in. At the same time, I'm bringing my cue into a 1/2 tip offset. At full stance, my eyes are still doing all the work, cue not in aiming position yet. If I want, I can double check the SL and AL at this point, make sure they are perfect. Now I turn my eye focus to CCB (through stepping) and THAT is the moment I'm pivoting/moving my cue onto the NISL.

When I'm not in "instruction mode", I can sweep my cue right onto the NISL as I come to full stance, as all these steps can be done in one fell unconscious movement. Moving into a 1/2 offset (left or right) also helps me focus on the correct CCB (which stepping also provides on its own.)

And that's all it takes to improve one's game using CTE.
However, the naysayers, "scientists", and gripers will continually rant about "that's impossible...it's a lie....trying to sell a scam"..(you name it).
Watch it happen....just like it has for decades.

 

[JB Cases]

I would have thought there was a simple, no brainer answer, but OK hopefully we'll hear back from mohrt.


Not sure how more clear I could be. The videos you guys present are of the nature "here's what the steps are." I don't believe those steps lead to the results you get so I'm more interested in what is actually happening. I'm following along with mohrt as best I can, asking questions along the way and leaving an open mind that I'm doing something wrong. Sorry if you are disappointed. I think this thread is a great idea by mohrt. I'm interested in the explanation as to why mohrt's NISL is so much farther away from where the other NISL's are because the way I've been doing it the tip placement for the NISL is all in the same place. This is the crux of the issue.

I agree that it is a problem when you are not sure how you could be more clear. The fact that you can't understand the uselessness of the video you made for anyone to have any chance to see if you're doing something wrong is the problem. Either you are just not intellectually capable of being in this discussion OR you you are being intellectually dishonest.

Mohrt did not say that the nisl is "far away" from other nisls. You said that. Furthermore we know exactly what you think and it is that you think you have caught him with a "gotcha" like you think you caught Stan when you dissected his video.

In any event, when I have time I will do a video with my new laser setup and go over what you did and see what happens when CTE is applied correctly with a full field of view using your line setups.

 

[Dan White]

When I place my cue on the table I'm not "aiming" at anything yet, I'm simply placing the cue on the table nearby where my eyes are doing the work, basically the 1/2 tip offset position. This is purely by habit, I like to bring my cue tip into that position because it is a very natural pivoting move to CCB once my eyes are then focused on CCB through stepping. So here is the process: ball address, see AL and SL, then move into fulls stance following the SL all the way in. At the same time, I'm bringing my cue into a 1/2 tip offset. At full stance, my eyes are still doing all the work, cue not in aiming position yet. If I want, I can double check the SL and AL at this point, make sure they are perfect. Now I turn my eye focus to CCB (through stepping) and THAT is the moment I'm pivoting/moving my cue onto the NISL.

When I'm not in "instruction mode", I can sweep my cue right onto the NISL as I come to full stance, as all these steps can be done in one fell unconscious movement. Moving into a 1/2 offset (left or right) also helps me focus on the correct CCB (which stepping also provides on its own.)

You make it sound like the amount of offset is arbitrary. You use "basically" a half tip offset before you pivot to the NISL. Are you also moving your bridge hand as you pivot because otherwise I don't see how you could get to the NISL by pivoting around a fixed bridge at 1/2 or whatever tip you happen to choose.

 

[Dan White]

I agree that it is a problem when you are not sure how you could be more clear. The fact that you can't understand the uselessness of the video you made for anyone to have any chance to see if you're doing something wrong is the problem. Either you are just not intellectually capable of being in this discussion OR you you are being intellectually dishonest.

Mohrt did not say that the nisl is "far away" from other nisls. You said that. Furthermore we know exactly what you think and it is that you think you have caught him with a "gotcha" like you think you caught Stan when you dissected his video.

In any event, when I have time I will do a video with my new laser setup and go over what you did and see what happens when CTE is applied correctly with a full field of view using your line setups.

After I did my first video analysis you generously said whether right or wrong we need more of this kind of thing. A couple of years and several additional video analyses later and now I'm not intellectually capable of being in the discussion, or I'm a liar. Makes sense.

Stan made a mistake about throw and I documented it. If you are "not intellectually capable of" understanding it I can't worry about that. Others with a neutral point of view can make up their own mind.

But, it isn't about you. mohrt made a very interesting video and I might have some analysis of my own to further the discussion. If you do make a video with the laser be sure to post it in this thread.

 

[mohrt]

You make it sound like the amount of offset is arbitrary. You use "basically" a half tip offset before you pivot to the NISL. Are you also moving your bridge hand as you pivot because otherwise I don't see how you could get to the NISL by pivoting around a fixed bridge at 1/2 or whatever tip you happen to choose.

Think about it. If the NISL is always exactly CCB from the given visual offset, what really matters exactly where the cue is coming in from? I could keep the cue in the air and sweep direct to the NISL if I wanted to. That is much of what pro one is. I like the 1/2 tip offset to the SL because that puts the back of the cue on the NISL and a very natural pivot to it. That is what manual pivot is. I could place the cue an entire 1/2 ball offset and pivot in, which is similar to what spider does. Before we had stepping, the 1/2 tip offset is what led you to CCB, then you turn the cue into that CCB. If my cue was off, and/or my bridge hand was off, I’d adjust everything slightly to get the cue and bridge on the NISL. All the same result. Our eyes tell us where the NISL is, which is one of two CCB (left or right) from the visual offset.

 

[Low500]

Think about it. If the NISL is always exactly CCB from the given visual offset, what really matters exactly where the cue is coming in from? I could keep the cue in the air and sweep direct to the NISL if I wanted to. That is much of what pro one is. I like the 1/2 tip offset to the SL because that puts the back of the cue on the NISL and a very natural pivot to it. That is what manual pivot is. I could place the cue an entire 1/2 ball offset and pivot in, which is similar to what spider does. Before we had stepping, the 1/2 tip offset is what led you to CCB, then you turn the cue into that CCB. If my cue was off, and/or my bridge hand was off, I’d adjust everything slightly to get the cue and bridge on the NISL. All the same result. Our eyes tell us where the NISL is, which is one of two CCB (left or right) from the visual offset.

"All the same result. Our eyes tell us where the NISL is, which is one of two CCB (left or right) from the visual offset" <===and THAT, for the "lurkers" here, is what it's all about.
I heartily encourage all "lurkers" to become involved with CTE aiming. Check it out for yourself AT THE TABLE.
Admittedly, it is tougher to do if you don't have a table of your own at your home. At a public pool room you have to contend with pests wanting to "play a little cheap" to supposedly "check out" your newfound knowledge. Pests are nuisances.
Remember, you can become extremely efficient with this modern way of aiming on one of those small bar tables (which can easily fit into most apartments). And a used one is quite affordable. Once you get the system down, you can then move up to the larger tables in public if you so desire or stick with the smaller tables...it's a matter of getting better at the game, you know.
You can become a rugged individualist and evolve into a new era of aiming in the game of pool. There exists a wealth of information to get you started, using Stan Shuffett's Truth Series available FREE on YouTube.
Nobody will lean on you to buy anything or give you any grief. I like recruiting newer guys into the system. Quite a number have become involved with CTE just from reading about it here.
This AZBilliards website is a very popular pool shooting site, well run, and has LOTS of visitors.
Good wishes to you.

 

[mohrt]

I want to make one more clarification: the eyes can do all the steps to find the NISL from both ball address and full stance. For instance, at ball address I can find the AL and SL, then step the CB to find the left or right CCB (NISL). That is the shot line. I have done nothing with the cue yet. From here if I wanted to, I can fall down into full stance following NISL and sweep my cue and bridge hand onto it, sliding into my traditional target-shooting vision center (the one you always used before CTE). Congratulations, you just performed Pro One.

Another approach: at ball address find SL and AL, then fall down into full stance following the SL. This keeps your eyes at the visual offset all the way in. Once at full stance, again I can check the SL and AL, then step the CB to find the left or right CCB, and that is the NISL. My eyes are at an offset, so I'm not using my target-shooting vision center for the NISL. In a normal cadence I would sweep my cue right onto the NISL in one motion. This is called disguised pivoting. Again, I am not sighting down the NISL with my old target-shooting vision center, I am looking at it from an offset. From the offset I can see everything: the AL, the SL, the stepped CB left or right edge, and the left or right CCB (NISL). All of this becomes one unconscious "view" to the brain. A deadly setup if you ask me. During learning the offset sighting is different and takes getting used to.

If you prefer, you can bring your cue onto the NISL via a manual pivot. This is what I'm doing during my instructional video demonstrations. I bring the cue in 1/2 tip off from the SL, then pivot the cue onto the NISL once I have a visual on it. An TBH, I don't think I'm being as careful as I could be putting the cue exactly on the 1/2 tip offset, but I know the system well enough that it doesn't matter much for me. What matters is the NISL.

 

[JB Cases]

After I did my first video analysis you generously said whether right or wrong we need more of this kind of thing. A couple of years and several additional video analyses later and now I'm not intellectually capable of being in the discussion, or I'm a liar. Makes sense.

Stan made a mistake about throw and I documented it. If you are "not intellectually capable of" understanding it I can't worry about that. Others with a neutral point of view can make up their own mind.

But, it isn't about you. mohrt made a very interesting video and I might have some analysis of my own to further the discussion. If you do make a video with the laser be sure to post it in this thread.

THAT video was something that contained information that could be followed. You were using SOMEONE ELSE'S video to break it down frame by frame and make claims about what you thought you saw. You could ONLY do this because a video of sufficient information was provided for ANYONE to use in such a way if they so chose to.

The two videos where you are the shooter are next to useless for the purpose you intended them to be. They are only good for misleading those not familiar enough with the subject. Either you are incapable of seeing that OR you have deliberately and maliciously created them for the purpose of misleading ignorant viewers.

And yes, when I THOUGHT that you might be seriously interested in discussing Center to Edge aiming I was of the opinion that analysis videos by you or anyone else could be helpful. However when your only interest appears to be attempting to discredit Stan by calling him a snake-oil salesman, and to discredit CTE students as delusional cult-members, then I can change my mind about you and your intellect and ethics.

I give everyone a chance to demonstrate their character to me. Yours has been weighed and found lacking in my opinion. There is not a single CTE user on earth who has the same amount of experience and table time as you who isn't a better player than you. That's my opinion and is based on the fact that a CTE user has a far larger arsenal of shots that they can consistently make. The ONLY possible advantage you can have is strategic in whatever disciplines that the CTE user has not sufficiently learned. If a CTE user then decides to learn whatever your "best game" is then they will be better than you are within a fairly short time.

And that is the actual point here. The practicality of the CTE aiming system, or any other objective aiming system, to the shooter is clear in the results that they get. Which are, more shots made, more games won, more matches won, and more tournaments won. You're a straight pool player. Are you fargo rated? If so what is your rating? I am a 611. If you're close to my rating then tell us if 14.1 is your best game and show us a video of your high run. Whatever it is I will beat it within a month of you showing it. I haven't played 14.1 seriously since the 90s. I am confident that I will score more than you because I can aim better than you and I can learn/relearn enough straight pool patterns to beat your score. You are blinded by the trees and can't understand the scope of the forrest. You want to nitpick Stan's videos and Mohrt's video attempting to discredit them. Not because you are interested in actually learning or getting better at CTE. But CTE is an overview of the forest. It provides a kit for navigating that forest while you are stuck starving wondering why the moss is there and not there.

 

[Dan White]

THAT video was something that contained information that could be followed. You were using SOMEONE ELSE'S video to break it down frame by frame and make claims about what you thought you saw. You could ONLY do this because a video of sufficient information was provided for ANYONE to use in such a way if they so chose to.

The two videos where you are the shooter are next to useless for the purpose you intended them to be. They are only good for misleading those not familiar enough with the subject. Either you are incapable of seeing that OR you have deliberately and maliciously created them for the purpose of misleading ignorant viewers.

And yes, when I THOUGHT that you might be seriously interested in discussing Center to Edge aiming I was of the opinion that analysis videos by you or anyone else could be helpful. However when your only interest appears to be attempting to discredit Stan by calling him a snake-oil salesman, and to discredit CTE students as delusional cult-members, then I can change my mind about you and your intellect and ethics.

I give everyone a chance to demonstrate their character to me. Yours has been weighed and found lacking in my opinion. There is not a single CTE user on earth who has the same amount of experience and table time as you who isn't a better player than you. That's my opinion and is based on the fact that a CTE user has a far larger arsenal of shots that they can consistently make. The ONLY possible advantage you can have is strategic in whatever disciplines that the CTE user has not sufficiently learned. If a CTE user then decides to learn whatever your "best game" is then they will be better than you are within a fairly short time.

And that is the actual point here. The practicality of the CTE aiming system, or any other objective aiming system, to the shooter is clear in the results that they get. Which are, more shots made, more games won, more matches won, and more tournaments won. You're a straight pool player. Are you fargo rated? If so what is your rating? I am a 611. If you're close to my rating then tell us if 14.1 is your best game and show us a video of your high run. Whatever it is I will beat it within a month of you showing it. I haven't played 14.1 seriously since the 90s. I am confident that I will score more than you because I can aim better than you and I can learn/relearn enough straight pool patterns to beat your score. You are blinded by the trees and can't understand the scope of the forrest. You want to nitpick Stan's videos and Mohrt's video attempting to discredit them. Not because you are interested in actually learning or getting better at CTE. But CTE is an overview of the forest. It provides a kit for navigating that forest while you are stuck starving wondering why the moss is there and not there.

Where I'm coming from on the CTE issue is this: Nobody in CTE world has been able to explain how CTE works. The textbook, sanctioned explanation provided by Stan is that it is a mystery. I'm not happy with that. I'd like to know why it really works, if it does. As years go by I learn things here and there and I begin to come up with my own ideas of what is going on. I have concluded that the most likely scenario is that the player is making it happen somehow, either in the initial set up or during the stroke. Not sure because there is so little data. What I do know is that when I follow the steps with manual pivoting I do not get good results and I believe that is because I am following the instructions rigidly and not allowing the pocket location to skew the process. Mohrt offered this thread so I take it as an opportunity to see, again, if there is a clear explanation, which we are in the process of discussing now.

You really have to get off this idea that my laser video is some kind of idiotic or evil plot. Again, it was interesting to illustrate the edge to center with the laser as a tool to help learn the steps, which were to see that line with my right eye (something I couldn't do). I don't think I ever replied to mohrt on that as we moved on to other things, like this waste of time responding to red herrings.

Let's get back to where we started, OK? A little less drama and more answers forthcoming.

 

[mohrt]

Where I'm coming from on the CTE issue is this: Nobody in CTE world has been able to explain how CTE works. The textbook, sanctioned explanation provided by Stan is that it is a mystery. I'm not happy with that. I'd like to know why it really works, if it does. As years go by I learn things here and there and I begin to come up with my own ideas of what is going on. I have concluded that the most likely scenario is that the player is making it happen somehow, either in the initial set up or during the stroke. Not sure because there is so little data. What I do know is that when I follow the steps with manual pivoting I do not get good results and I believe that is because I am following the instructions rigidly and not allowing the pocket location to skew the process. Mohrt offered this thread so I take it as an opportunity to see, again, if there is a clear explanation, which we are in the process of discussing now.

You really have to get off this idea that my laser video is some kind of idiotic or evil plot. Again, it was interesting to illustrate the edge to center with the laser as a tool to help learn the steps, which were to see that line with my right eye (something I couldn't do). I don't think I ever replied to mohrt on that as we moved on to other things, like this waste of time responding to red herrings.

Let's get back to where we started, OK? A little less drama and more answers forthcoming.

Why don't we start with you first learning the system with the steps provided, and if something isn't working we can discuss what might be going wrong. Leave the lasers and solving the WHY for a later time. Let's get you at least functional with the steps. Maybe we should start with a much simpler shot for learning on, like the one I posted earlier for PJ.

 

[cookie man]

THAT video was something that contained information that could be followed. You were using SOMEONE ELSE'S video to break it down frame by frame and make claims about what you thought you saw. You could ONLY do this because a video of sufficient information was provided for ANYONE to use in such a way if they so chose to.

The two videos where you are the shooter are next to useless for the purpose you intended them to be. They are only good for misleading those not familiar enough with the subject. Either you are incapable of seeing that OR you have deliberately and maliciously created them for the purpose of misleading ignorant viewers.

And yes, when I THOUGHT that you might be seriously interested in discussing Center to Edge aiming I was of the opinion that analysis videos by you or anyone else could be helpful. However when your only interest appears to be attempting to discredit Stan by calling him a snake-oil salesman, and to discredit CTE students as delusional cult-members, then I can change my mind about you and your intellect and ethics.

I give everyone a chance to demonstrate their character to me. Yours has been weighed and found lacking in my opinion. There is not a single CTE user on earth who has the same amount of experience and table time as you who isn't a better player than you. That's my opinion and is based on the fact that a CTE user has a far larger arsenal of shots that they can consistently make. The ONLY possible advantage you can have is strategic in whatever disciplines that the CTE user has not sufficiently learned. If a CTE user then decides to learn whatever your "best game" is then they will be better than you are within a fairly short time.

And that is the actual point here. The practicality of the CTE aiming system, or any other objective aiming system, to the shooter is clear in the results that they get. Which are, more shots made, more games won, more matches won, and more tournaments won. You're a straight pool player. Are you fargo rated? If so what is your rating? I am a 611. If you're close to my rating then tell us if 14.1 is your best game and show us a video of your high run. Whatever it is I will beat it within a month of you showing it. I haven't played 14.1 seriously since the 90s. I am confident that I will score more than you because I can aim better than you and I can learn/relearn enough straight pool patterns to beat your score. You are blinded by the trees and can't understand the scope of the forrest. You want to nitpick Stan's videos and Mohrt's video attempting to discredit them. Not because you are interested in actually learning or getting better at CTE. But CTE is an overview of the forest. It provides a kit for navigating that forest while you are stuck starving wondering why the moss is there and not there.

Good post John.

 

[cookie man]

Where I'm coming from on the CTE issue is this: Nobody in CTE world has been able to explain how CTE works. The textbook, sanctioned explanation provided by Stan is that it is a mystery. I'm not happy with that. I'd like to know why it really works, if it does. As years go by I learn things here and there and I begin to come up with my own ideas of what is going on. I have concluded that the most likely scenario is that the player is making it happen somehow, either in the initial set up or during the stroke. Not sure because there is so little data. What I do know is that when I follow the steps with manual pivoting I do not get good results and I believe that is because I am following the instructions rigidly and not allowing the pocket location to skew the process. Mohrt offered this thread so I take it as an opportunity to see, again, if there is a clear explanation, which we are in the process of discussing now.

You really have to get off this idea that my laser video is some kind of idiotic or evil plot. Again, it was interesting to illustrate the edge to center with the laser as a tool to help learn the steps, which were to see that line with my right eye (something I couldn't do). I don't think I ever replied to mohrt on that as we moved on to other things, like this waste of time responding to red herrings.

Let's get back to where we started, OK? A little less drama and more answers forthcoming.

Why don't you take an hour and just do everything Morht's way. Forget about everything else. What could you possibly have to lose "innocent Dan"