What is the visual?
If it's done while stood up, when you are down on the shot, how do you know you're on or off?
A video on pivoting systems
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
If it's done while stood up, when you are down on the shot, how do you know you're on or off?
So... visuals = /trigger warning/ "feel". The inconvenient truth some of us have been saying about CTE for 20+ years.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Well... buy the book and make a summary post of what you learned.
How the heck should I know?
I have no clue, I'm not trying to say anything about CTE. While I did buy the book out of curiosity I was/am at a point in my pool game that an aiming system means very little and isn't worth the time investment. Can it work? Obviously, but so can most other systems. CTE is like a light bulb moment to some, for me it was kind of interesting but I'm not going to devote the time to master it. I shoot well enough as it is. The reason I miss is largely mental and a lack of focus, nothing to do with aiming.
Actually in the past I said in this forum that it could actually be simulated mathematically and could even use cad to represent it, and I can, but I won't, because the people who call me out on it are too lazy to actually try the system I use, and just make excuses for not doing so. They would just claim the lines were the wrong color or too long or some stupid sh*t like that. In the context you mention about my recent statement I said, or at least intended to say, that I do not NEED to use math to use the system, and I don't because I have over time trained my eyes and mind to recognize what I see and how to execute it. Anything can be explained mathematically no doubt, but doesn't always have to be.
2 DVD's and a 6 lbs book later....
The bold part is another way of saying that you don't understand what CTE is supposed to be.
Funny as hell, again. You keep telling me I don't understand CTE, yet I keep using it, it keeps working.
You have supposedly tried it to no degree of success, yet you understand it,,,,,,,,, really?
Why don't you explain to me and others exactly what it is that we don't understand about it?
Using it successfully and understanding it are different things.
Why don’t you read a couple hundred of the past posts on the subject? Look for the word “objective”.
pj
chgo
Absolutely!
I keep telling you that your posts show a misunderstanding of what Stan says. You continue to have no interest in learning what I/others mean. You prefer to engage in a pissing contest.
And as such, your posts say absolutely nothing of context to that claim. Why not explain to me what I don't get. I mean, I've been civil about it, I'm not into name calling and such. I've seen people try to help you with executing the CTE and all I've seen from you, and others, is quitting and then the name calling back and forths you've been involved in, to the point of people being banned. You obviously don't care to use it, so you obviously don't know how, yet when someone does and they have success you claim for some reason they don't understand what they are doing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?
Is that allowed in APA?
I've discussed it more than once in this thread alone. I have tried CTE and when I do it exactly as described it doesn't work. Aside from that, let's go over it again without any hostility:
Stan does not say CTE is objective because it uses edges and 3/4 ball "objective" reference points (which was the subject of your first post in this thread). He says it is objective because the steps he recommends PUT YOU ON THE SHOT LINE without any judgment of when the shot "looks right." An example I know of where a system really is close to 100% objective is Poolology. This is because the system PUTS YOU ON THE SHOT LINE without the player needing to have any pool playing experience other than to be able to deliver the cue straight.
How does Poolology put you on the shot line? It uses the geometry of the table and the diamonds. When you do some math as directed the system tells you what fraction to hit. If you look into the inscribed angle theorem translated to a pool table you can see that it makes complete sense.
How does CTE put you on the shot line? Well, we know the ABC instructions of how to do CTE but there is no reason ever given as to how it puts you on the shot line. It's been 20 years and the best we have is "round barns." At some point you have to step back and think maybe it is simply rote practice and your brain's ability to pocket balls. You can fool yourself all you want about how you are doing CTE but perception can be misleading. One bit of evidence for that is just about every CTE user says, "Well, the way I do it is..." You can't do Poolology "your way." It won't work. You can do CTE "your way" and still have it work, apparently. That points to players who are doing some CTE related steps as a pre shot routine and have gotten good at pocketing balls through rote practice.
Are we at least in agreement as to what the issue is?
Coos Cues
Coos Cues
What is that supposed to mean? Is that some kind of a dig at me?
I have never played APA.
And immediately you begin with the same false statement, (it doesn't work). That is just a plain lie. If it didn't work you didn't do it right.
I don't have a clue what a 3/4 ball reference point is and doubt seriously I referred to that, so I'm afraid you are misunderstanding something I said. I'm not looking for it cause I don't really care.
Oh so that's why it's not objective? But then you admit that it really is objective because it uses a few of the same references as other systems, ie, the 4 quarters of the balls? I believe his steps put the shooter on the shot line when done correctly because I've done it for years so yeah it does. Whether or not a shooter takes a second glance to see if it looks doable is up to them. I will say there are times when a shot looks like it could be 1 of 2 perceptions so the logical thing for a shooter to do is line of the shot with one, then take that glance, if it looks good fire, if not then do the same process with the other and see if it looks better. No adjustments for "feel" or whatnot need to be made for either. To a knowledgeable player one will look right and the other simply will not.
It may be if you divide the balls down to small enough fractions. The simple 1/4 ball divisions utilized by CTE will not be accurate enough for poolology. That is why the math is so important to it. When I play pool I don't want to do math, which is why I gave up on poolology years ago.
The angles on the table do not differ from one system to another. When I tried poolology I got headaches frankly trying to aim at 3/8 or 5/8 or whatever portions of the balls after working out a mathematical pop quiz on every shot. I don't know how an inscribed angle theorem plays into all that. And truthfully, since you mentioned the geometry of the pool table and the diamonds there is a statement Stan says all the time about CTE locking the shot in to the geometry of a pool table and the perfect 2:1 ratio of it. I don't understand how or why that is and maybe it has something to do with this inscribed angle theorem. Brian is the mathematician around here so maybe he could speak to that. I do know this, I play one pocket, almost exclusively, other games with the exception of straight pool bore me to tears. There have been many many times when my best shot was a 2 or 3 rail bank to my pocket but I don't use any particular banking system to cipher the amount of cut into the first rail, but I can generally guess fairly close oftentimes, and so after determining about where that 1st rail contact would be if I imagine a pocket there and then use the perception that would cut the object ball there the ball seems to lock in to that table geometry and make or come very close to making the 2 or 3 rail bank shot. I don't understand why that is and don't need to. I had success with it so many times I just trust the system to work if I do my part correctly.
It's a multi-step process that does exactly that. I would venture to say the biggest reason one does not fall on the shot line is because they do not truly know or correctly execute the process. There is no other reason for it not working. Each step done in the correct order, correctly, is what puts you on the shot line. That is the "how".
The round barn concept is merely one of several explanations Stan, and Hal Houle actually, used to explain the effect of looking through the center of a round ball from a different angle. The result of doing so is what Stan calls "stepping" the cue ball, and is mandatory for success with CTE. Stan, being a career Teacher is well, passionate at least about finding ways of describing points, especially ones that important.
I do not, very few shots I even look at the pocket after I address the cue ball. I do miss sometimes of course, so maybe if I did the glance I mentioned earlier a bit more often I'd do better?
Sure, I can agree with that, but bear in mind when I discuss my success or lack of it with CTE I am doing that, just that. There are variable ways of doing it and what I discuss is only based on how I do it. I don't care if you or anyone else never uses it, but I take exception when you or anyone else comes on here and states that it just does not work. That sir, is a falsehood.
A system is only fully objective if one of its objective references is the aim line. If the objective references only get close to the aim line, it's not a fully objective system.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I think another way to say that is: An aiming system is objective if it could be used directly to program a robot to play pool.
One example is the ghost ball system, which would be easy to program. One problem is that it would be inaccurate due to throw. The next step up would be the throw-corrected ghost ball system. That would depend on the condition of the equipment and, of course spin on the cue ball, but it could theoretically be programmed to be scary accurate.
Yes, I've said it that way too - I think it may be the clearest definition conceptually (with the caveat that a robot can follow much more complicated, detailed instructions than a human playing pool).
pj
chgo
Last edited:
You could have a robot do the math for poolology
Then shoot the calculated aim