CTE aiming chat

Not at all.

Reading comprehension issues, Cookie?

PJ is merely confirming the info. regarding the pocket opening.

That has nothing to do with the rest of the topic regarding CTE?

Best Wishes

As usual, you are the one with reading comprehension problems. Note that the poster asked if CTE could help him with those shots. That would mean that he is not currently using CTE on those shots, but is wondering if that system would help him.

Also note, that I stated where the center of the pocket is to be determined from. That is true no matter what method of aiming is used. It does not change. It can not change, as it is a part of the actual table.

I then answered his question as to whether or not CTE could help him.

In your usual manner of searching for anything you can nitpick against CTE, you failed to understand the persons question, and failed to understand my answer. This is most likely, because you were so anxious to prove CTE and myself wrong on something, that while you were creaming your jeans thinking you had me, you never bothered to take one second to think about what you were even reading.

So, once again, while trying to denigrate a system and another poster, thinking you make yourself look wise, you actually do just the opposite.

Even when called on it by others, instead of acknowledging your mistake, you attack them. Yes, Rick, we all see you for what you are doing here.
 
As usual, you are the one with reading comprehension problems. Note that the poster asked if CTE could help him with those shots. That would mean that he is not currently using CTE on those shots, but is wondering if that system would help him.

Also note, that I stated where the center of the pocket is to be determined from. That is true no matter what method of aiming is used. It does not change. It can not change, as it is a part of the actual table.

I then answered his question as to whether or not CTE could help him.

In your usual manner of searching for anything you can nitpick against CTE, you failed to understand the persons question, and failed to understand my answer. This is most likely, because you were so anxious to prove CTE and myself wrong on something, that while you were creaming your jeans thinking you had me, you never bothered to take one second to think about what you were even reading.

So, once again, while trying to denigrate a system and another poster, thinking you make yourself look wise, you actually do just the opposite.

Even when called on it by others, instead of acknowledging your mistake, you attack them. Yes, Rick, we all see you for what you are doing here.

No Neil.

Where did I say that you were wrong about anything in this thread?

You paranoia is showing & as usual you're 'omniscience' is overactive as is your proclivity for misstating & distorting matters.

I understood everything as it is.

Monty made a good point that clarified the possible, if true, connection to the vertex.

Do you know what a vertex is?

Best Wishes.
 
Hi Jon,

Monty initiated a PM conversation with me & PMd again just a short while ago.

You do not know everything that goes on.

When unproven assertions of this nature are made, 'someone' should post about them being unproven.

Do CTEers 'honestly feel the need to post' constantly those unproven assertions.

Thanks for your concern about my AZB well being, though.

Best Wishes.

The only unproven assertions are yours.
 
No Neil.

Where did I say that you were wrong about anything in this thread?

You paranoia is showing & as usual you're 'omniscience' is overactive as is your proclivity for misstating & distorting matters.

I understood everything as it is.

Monty made a good point that clarified the possible, if true, connection to the vertex.

Do you know what a vertex is?

Best Wishes.

Keep denying and attacking, Rick. Might I suggest you re-read your own posts in this thread.
 
The only unproven assertions are yours.

Where is the proof that CTE is completely objective in it's nature?

You don't even see that that can not be proven by any means other than a rational logical objective explanation.

Where is that?
 
Keep denying and attacking, Rick. Might I suggest you re-read your own posts in this thread.

Go ahead & point them out, Neil.

I'm sure you would have already done so if they would support what you said.

As I said, Monty pointed out the vertex.

That really means nothing regarding whether or not any assertion is true & factual, but it connects with the proposition of the 'fantasy'.

Monty stated his purpose so why not let him have what he wants here?
 
Where is the proof that CTE is completely objective in it's nature?

You don't even see that that can not be proven by any means other than a rational logical objective explanation.

Where is that?

What does this have to do with this thread?

I don't claim to know Mohrt's intentions for starting this thread, but I highly doubt it was to rehash the same old arguments.

Again.

Are you trying to get yourself banned?
 
As usual, you are the one with reading comprehension problems. Note that the poster asked if CTE could help him with those shots. That would mean that he is not currently using CTE on those shots, but is wondering if that system would help him.



Also note, that I stated where the center of the pocket is to be determined from. That is true no matter what method of aiming is used. It does not change. It can not change, as it is a part of the actual table.



I then answered his question as to whether or not CTE could help him.


I actually took his question as: he was already using CTE and needed to know how to make the steeper cuts. If he was asking if CTE would help him, that makes more sense!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I actually took his question as: he was already using CTE and needed to know how to make the steeper cuts. If he was asking if CTE would help him, that makes more sense!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, his statement showed that he is not using CTE. Because, as you well know, you don't aim for the center of the pocket when using CTE. The system brings you to center pocket.

Your own post #6 stated that you didn't think he was using CTE.
 
Take a billiard table with no pockets. Wedge a ball into the corner frozen to both rails. That ball is the "center pocket" target that works from anywhere on the table. On a table with pockets, imagine where the rails would meet and place a ball as if frozen to them. That is the target. Not the point where the rails meet. CTE gives you the aimline through that ball.
That's a much better definition than something deeper in the pocket, but "between the points" is even a little better.

Because pocket openings are wider than a ball even from straight down the rail, "between the points" is a little more centered in the opening from all angles. The difference is greatest for shots down the rail, and none from straight out.

Here's a pic comparing "intersection of rails" (white X) and "between the points" (black X) to show what I mean.

pj
chgo

(Ignore the 1 & 5 balls. They're just there for scale.)

View attachment 62494
 

Attachments

  • center pocket.jpg
    center pocket.jpg
    60.8 KB · Views: 630
Last edited:
Where's the literal center pocket mark?


That's a much better definition than something deeper in the pocket, but "between the points" is even a little better.

Because pocket openings are wider than a ball even from straight down the rail, "between the points" is a little more centered in the opening from all angles. The difference is greatest for shots down the rail, and none from straight out.

Here's a pic comparing "intersection of rails" (white X) and "between the points" (black X) to show what I mean.

pj
chgo

(Ignore the 1 & 5 balls. They're just there for scale.)

View attachment 62494


If you are shooting down the rail, would you rather go through the black or white "x"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If you are shooting down the rail, would you rather go through the black or white "x"?
The black x gives the most room on both sides, so that's what I want the OB to go through. But from on the rail or very near it I'd aim at the white x to take advantage of the rail's "mirroring" effect, with the intent of sending the OB through the black x as a result.

Sorry if that's confusing.

pj
chgo
 
The black x gives the most room on both sides, so that's what I want the OB to go through. But from on the rail or very near it I'd aim at the white x to take advantage of the rail's "mirroring" effect, with the intent of sending the OB through the black x as a result.



Sorry if that's confusing.



pj

chgo


If I'm shooting down the rail, I think I would want to hug the rail as close as possible to minimize the chances of "jawing up", especially on tables with deeper shelves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rick, either prove that CTE doesn't help ANYONE with ANYTHING or let it go. This is not the first time I have had to say something about this. You hijacking every CTE thread to talk about why it doesn't WORK FOR YOU is getting very old.

Mike

When unproven assertions of this nature are made, 'someone' should post about them being unproven.
 
Rick, either prove that CTE doesn't help ANYONE with ANYTHING or let it go. This is not the first time I have had to say something about this. You hijacking every CTE thread to talk about why it doesn't WORK FOR YOU is getting very old.

Mike

Mike,

I've never said that it does not help anyone with anything & I have no inclination to try to prove what I do not believe.

I'm not talking about why it doesn't work for me. I'm merely stating the opposite of what it is being asserted to be & do.

But.. you hold all the cards.

So... I'm essentially censored even though I had no intention of participating any further in this thread.

I hope you will note that I tried to exit & asked for Monty to be given what he wanted for this thread.

Now if I participate in the other threads I will have this thrown at me, so essentially I'm censored.

Best Wishes.
 
If I'm shooting down the rail, I think I would want to hug the rail as close as possible to minimize the chances of "jawing up", especially on tables with deeper shelves.
Yes, that's a difficulty of rail shots to offset the benefit of the mirror effect. We end up doing the same thing for different reasons.

pj
chgo
 
Hooray..........

Rick, either prove that CTE doesn't help ANYONE with ANYTHING or let it go. This is not the first time I have had to say something about this. You hijacking every CTE thread to talk about why it doesn't WORK FOR YOU is getting very old.
Mike
Thank you very much AZHousePro.
Now maybe this discussion won't turn into another "hissy-fest".
(there is really a wealth of information in that CTE method of playing. I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy knowing about it without all the negative crud that gets shot at it by various posters.)
A little BS and humorous nonsense is okay here and there, but when it turns into an obvious obsession, you're right, it gets OLD quick. Just my opinion.
Thanks again. :smile:
Flash
 
I'll be a bit more specific. How do I compensate for a steep cut with my pivot? With CTE you don't technically aim for the pocket. That is accomplished through the pivot.

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk
 
I'll be a bit more specific. How do I compensate for a steep cut with my pivot? With CTE you don't technically aim for the pocket. That is accomplished through the pivot.

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk

With a steep cut you are probably going to use a one-line perception, 45 or 60. The pivots are the same.
 
Back
Top