A real CTE shot for you to try.

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Maybe for one distance between CB and OB - but for the exact same cut angle, when the CB/OB distance changes, so does the AL's angle to the SL (except for AL edge-to-B, which is always parallel to the center-to-edge SL). Here's how A and C angles change with the CB/OB distance at 2 diamonds vs. 1 diamond.

Just an observation...

pj
chgo

View attachment 591189
Is the one on the right for doubles play?
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
They don't angle in opposite ways, as I just stated the SL moves laterally with the AL. For instance, when the AL is on "A", the SL is one tick outside of "C". When the AL is "B", the SL is the right edge of the OB. When the AL is "C", the SL is 1/2 inch in space off the edge of the OB. In all cases, as the CB and OB move into close proximity, it requires the head poked out slightly more to see the AL correctly.
mohrt I just started rewatching truth series video 1 and 2 more carefully, assuming I already knew the basics. Am I crazy or did Stan just fundamentally change CTE in video 2? In the past the 15 degree perception was edge to A and CENTER TO THE ACTUAL EDGE OF THE OB. Same for the 30 and 45. What Stan is calling the "sight line" used to be the center to edge line but now it is a line parallel to the ABC lines!!! Watch the video at 12:30. He says the edge for the center to edge line on a 15 degree perception doesn't have to be the actual edge of the ob. What?

 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
mohrt I just started rewatching truth series video 1 and 2 more carefully, assuming I already knew the basics. Am I crazy or did Stan just fundamentally change CTE in video 2? In the past the 15 degree perception was edge to A and CENTER TO THE ACTUAL EDGE OF THE OB. Same for the 30 and 45. What Stan is calling the "sight line" used to be the center to edge line but now it is a line parallel to the ABC lines!!! Watch the video at 12:30. He says the edge for the center to edge line on a 15 degree perception doesn't have to be the actual edge of the ob. What?


Stan has developed and refined the system over time. DVD 1 didn’t even have the 45 IIRC. Now the SL and AL are parallel with a PX line between. Mid face vision always on the parallax. Everything more consistent and easier. Angled face is also and addition to the instructions to help everything fall into place easier. So although the old methods worked, the newer refined methods are easier and more consistent.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So although the old methods worked, the newer refined methods are easier and more consistent.
And less objective. The 45 perception is no different than ghost ball aiming.

Did you have a chance to watch my video reply to this thread?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
mohrt I just started rewatching truth series video 1 and 2 more carefully, assuming I already knew the basics. Am I crazy or did Stan just fundamentally change CTE in video 2? In the past the 15 degree perception was edge to A and CENTER TO THE ACTUAL EDGE OF THE OB. Same for the 30 and 45. What Stan is calling the "sight line" used to be the center to edge line but now it is a line parallel to the ABC lines!!! Watch the video at 12:30. He says the edge for the center to edge line on a 15 degree perception doesn't have to be the actual edge of the ob. What?


I gotta say, this truth series is nothing like the old video lessons.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
And less objective. The 45 perception is no different than ghost ball aiming.

Did you have a chance to watch my video reply to this thread?

I just watched it. So, interesting test. However I’m very skeptical trying to align anything with a laser because our perception of the AL combined with the SL is not like a laser. It is true the your right eye is dominant for one line and left eye dominant for the other, but that does not mean your eyes are ON either of those lines equivalent to a laser line. Maybe it was a bad idea to even point out the whole left eye right eye dominance.

So here are the official instructions. “Stand behind the AL such that you can see the SL.”

I think this is an important distinction. Stand behind the AL. That doesn’t mean literally stand on the AL with your nose on it. But it Is important to move your head over such that you can see the AL. But an important addition; such that you can see the SL. I do this: I find the AL first, even put my head way out too far then come back to the AL, then look for the SL. Then I follow the SL all the way in to full stance. Once in full stance, you can check it all again: get your self so you can see that AL, even exaggerate it, then adjust only enough to see down the SL. This is all very slight movement of at all, depending on given shot.

After that, you can focus on the NISL and put your eyes and cue right on it. At that point CCB is the target. The OB is there in peripheral but no need to focus on it.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I just watched it. So, interesting test. However I’m very skeptical trying to align anything with a laser because our perception of the AL combined with the SL is not like a laser. It is true the your right eye is dominant for one line and left eye dominant for the other, but that does not mean your eyes are ON either of those lines equivalent to a laser line. Maybe it was a bad idea to even point out the whole left eye right eye dominance.

So here are the official instructions. “Stand behind the AL such that you can see the SL.”

I think this is an important distinction. Stand behind the AL. That doesn’t mean literally stand on the AL with your nose on it. But it Is important to move your head over such that you can see the AL. But an important addition; such that you can see the SL. I do this: I find the AL first, even put my head way out too far then come back to the AL, then look for the SL. Then I follow the SL all the way in to full stance. Once in full stance, you can check it all again: get your self so you can see that AL, even exaggerate it, then adjust only enough to see down the SL. This is all very slight movement of at all, depending on given shot.

After that, you can focus on the NISL and put your eyes and cue right on it. At that point CCB is the target. The OB is there in peripheral but no need to focus on it.
mohrt, with all due respect, you have a way of making declarative statements about CTE and then massaging them around into something else, or disowning those statements altogether when the are challenged in more detail:

1. CTE works because of the 2x1 table, but when questioned, then maybe it will work on other dimensions,
2. CTE overcomes CIT because of the over cut and because, well, it's CTE. When challenged with a video clearly showing the opposite, you say, you never think about it and it hasn't been a problem. You say that a lot.
3. You have to align one eye with the AL and the other with the SL but when performed exactly that way with a laser video, well then maybe saying that was not a good idea as your eyes are not actually on those lines,

I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm trying to get straight answers and it isn't happening. If you were a salesman I'd say you need to go back and learn more about your product before trying to sell it again.

I do have some comments about your laser video reply but that will have to wait until a bit later.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
mohrt, with all due respect, you have a way of making declarative statements about CTE and then massaging them around into something else, or disowning those statements altogether when the are challenged in more detail:

1. CTE works because of the 2x1 table, but when questioned, then maybe it will work on other dimensions,
2. CTE overcomes CIT because of the over cut and because, well, it's CTE. When challenged with a video clearly showing the opposite, you say, you never think about it and it hasn't been a problem. You say that a lot.
3. You have to align one eye with the AL and the other with the SL but when performed exactly that way with a laser video, well then maybe saying that was not a good idea as your eyes are not actually on those lines,

I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm trying to get straight answers and it isn't happening. If you were a salesman I'd say you need to go back and learn more about your product before trying to sell it again.

I do have some comments about your laser video reply but that will have to wait until a bit later.
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.
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.
That's complete garbage, sorry. CTE does not work ON a 2x1 table according to Stan it works BECAUSE IT IS a 2x1 table. There is a difference. Saying it works ON such a table implies that it might work on other tables, but that is not the message. It works BECAUSE IT IS 2x1 means that there is something about those dimensions that make CTE shots work. Forget about bank shots. The 2x1 explanation is an attempt to explain why the same perception is supposed to work for different ball positions. Awhile back you told me that your guess was that something happens with the rails to kind of fool your eye into seeing the same perception even when the shot angle is different.

My experiment with changing the dimensions of the table was meant to show that everybody (except cookie) understands that a non banked CTE shot will work on any dimension table. The red and yellow balls in my drawing will obviously go no matter what the table dimension is. Only a person in denial would say otherwise. This leads us to conclude that the 2x1 dimension has nothing to do with why CTE "works," but I guess that is a different thread.
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.
Here's another problem. Everybody has a different take on CTE. When Stan says something provably false his statements are simply ignored in favor of "well, here's how I see it." You are an ambassador of CTE every time you promote it so either you are a de facto spokesman for the method or you aren't. I will give you credit for separating yourself from what Stan says from time to time, but when you have no further curiosity beyond "it works for me" then don't get upset when someone else goes looking for the truth.
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.
You've said a lot of stuff that you later had to amend, so please don't lay the confusion on me and the others. You didn't even think about the two lines appearing to be closer together far away until someone in this thread mentioned it, but now you are putting that forward as an essential component of CTE? What you wrote above is backwards science. You have already concluded that CTE works exactly the way you think it does so when an inconvenient detail comes along you are required to explain it away. It's called rationalizing. Do you REALLY know that all of the optics and perceptual comments you made are true, or are you trying to explain why CTE does not work when a laser is employed to help train the eye to find the aim line. The laser and my imagination are both straight lines, so why should it matter? If I am doing something wrong, fine, let's discuss it and I will try again. More on that later in the other thread.
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.
I was using the salesman thing figuratively, not literally. Again, with respect, you do not know that it works. You know that you are good at pocketing balls using the CTE steps which, by the way, bear little resemblance to the CTE of years ago that was also supposed to work amazingly well. Some of us are interested in what is actually happening while many CTE users have said "I don't give a sh!t why it works, it just does."
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are the results of my trials.

dan
i dont know if this is important or not
but when you moved the object and cue ball 1 diamond closer to the short rail
you can see after the shot that the laser is not going straight up the table on the center line
it goes to the left of your white reinforcement
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
dan
i dont know if this is important or not
but when you moved the object and cue ball 1 diamond closer to the short rail
you can see after the shot that the laser is not going straight up the table on the center line
it goes to the left of your white reinforcement
The laser line is not on the center line between the balls. It is on the "aim line" which in this case is right edge of cb to center ob.
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
The laser line is not on the center line between the balls. It is on the "aim line" which in this case is right edge of cb to center ob.
but look at the start of the video and at 1:59
the laser line goes straight up the table
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Here are the results of my trials.

I watched it. Were there more than two shots done on video? I bought the same laser and will set it up next week. How do you know that the shot was 30 inside when you moved it up a diamond?

When you do these videos you never really show us the complete video.

This is me 2010.
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I watched it. Were there more than two shots done on video? I bought the same laser and will set it up next week. How do you know that the shot was 30 inside when you moved it up a diamond?
No. That is all I put on video because it represented the results I was getting. I said on the video that my results were all over the place because of the sensitivity of the method to the angle of the cue during the shot. I also was not looking at the ob during the stroke so that I was not influenced by the pocket location in my peripheral vision. Generally speaking, over enough trials to give me a stiff neck from pointing my face toward the pocket, the second shot tended to cut more into the long rail than the first shot. The two on video were just clean examples back to back to illustrate that.

I think it is a 30 inside because mohrt did several very similar shots and they were all 30 insides. I do note that my cb was on the foot spot while his is 1 diamond closer, but I doubt that throws it into a different perception. See my post below for a replay of that video.

When you do these videos you never really show us the complete video.

This is me 2010.
Nice video but without audio it is less informative.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
No. That is all I put on video because it represented the results I was getting. I said on the video that my results were all over the place because of the sensitivity of the method to the angle of the cue during the shot. I also was not looking at the ob during the stroke so that I was not influenced by the pocket location in my peripheral vision. Generally speaking, over enough trials to give me a stiff neck from pointing my face toward the pocket, the second shot tended to cut more into the long rail than the first shot. The two on video were just clean examples back to back to illustrate that.
Well, I suppose we have to just take your word for that given that there is no footage of you shooting those two shots nor any of the cueball position. I don't know why you do these videos and then question what Stan shows when he shows the complete setup and himself performing the shots. I mean, you went and dissected Stan's video making claims of steering but in your videos it's like you go out of your way to make them really hard to get anything useful out of them. You question our reports of what we observe but want us to take your word without ANY good video to back it up your words.

I think it is a 30 inside because mohrt did several very similar shots and they were all 30 insides. I do note that my cb was on the foot spot while his is 1 diamond closer, but I doubt that throws it into a different perception. See my post below for a replay of that video.
When the positions change so can the perceptions.

Nice video but without audio it is less informative.
What do you think it should inform you of? Try reading the description.

"Center to Edge demonstration for AZB Forum User JSP. All of these balls are lined up with the same center to edge line. As you can see I shoot all of them with a bridge distance that is about the same. On all shots I start my tip pre-pivot at the left edge of the cue ball and pivot to center ball and then I shoot. I make 4 of 7 shots - barely miss two and the one I miss by more than half a ball is the 4 ball which I inadvertently rolled out of position and didn't put back in it's place in line. This demo was shot in one take only - as of this video posting I have only done it ONE time only. It has not been edited at all."

Here is another one for you, taking on Pat's "ball placement" premise. From 2011


"This is a video I did to show that the motions using CTE are nearly identical shot for shot. Many of the opponents of CTE have put up diagrams of these shots and claimed that it's impossible to do the SAME motions on different shots and make the balls. The reality is that from the shooter's perspective every shot done here looks exactly the same. I use the CTE line as the starting point, put my bridge hand down with the tip pointing to the left side of the cue ball and pivot to center cue ball and shoot. Every shot done the same way. This is one of the strongest advantages to using the CTE method of aiming. Even if there are some "adjustments" from shot to shot they are so small as to not be noticeable by the shooter. This gives the shooter a tremendous sense of confidence on each shot with the feeling that he is lined up perfectly and then can focus on the stroke. For a CTE user none of these shots is any tougher than any of the others. If you are not a CTE user try these shots and see how you do."
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Eating my own dogfood, I just did this in a single take.

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.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What do you think it should inform you of? Try reading the description.

"Center to Edge demonstration for AZB Forum User JSP. All of these balls are lined up with the same center to edge line. As you can see I shoot all of them with a bridge distance that is about the same. On all shots I start my tip pre-pivot at the left edge of the cue ball and pivot to center ball and then I shoot. I make 4 of 7 shots - barely miss two and the one I miss by more than half a ball is the 4 ball which I inadvertently rolled out of position and didn't put back in it's place in line. This demo was shot in one take only - as of this video posting I have only done it ONE time only. It has not been edited at all."
See my post of mohrt's video for my reply.
 
Top