No I don't agree with you. But I can see where you can come to the conclusion that you have. You can't prove it and you can't demonstrate that you have any proficiency using cte, whether or not you are "fudging" or not.
As I said I have a couple different ways to test your assertions but I see no actual need to do so.
Just as I could show you full proficiency at CTE except when the shots are not "on" but I see no actual need to do so. Your argument in this post seems to be "I could prove it but I just don't want to."
Regarding 2*1 perfect rectangles and cte..... It is likely that regardless of the rectangle parameters that cte visuals would work for a wide range of shots one might take there. Certainly just about every shot that can be cut directly to a pocket would have a cte solution. Would there be a cte solution for a three rail bank on an irregular rectangle? I don't know.
So is it fair to say that you do not believe it is necessary to play on a 2x1 table in order for non banked shots to work using CTE?
It doesn't actually matter though as I have told you. Not only because the playing field in pocket billiards is a 2*1 rectangle but also because it works as proven by on table results.
The bottom line is, again for the ten thousandth time, of there is something about the cte process that automagically turns on the some sort of subconscious targeting system which allows the brain to turn a set of instructions into pretty much perfect aim then for the conscious part of the brain the practical effect is objective and consistent precision aiming.
It's like fire. Humans discovered how to start fires long before they understood what actually makes fire work.
The brain's ability to adjust and figure things out certainly is like magic, even miraculous, yet you do your best to discount that because you "just know" that you aren't making adjustments.
While you are spending time trying to pick apart Stan's statements the rest of us are busy happily making shots. You will honestly never ever understand any of this because you can't let go of your 2d flatland perspective. I almost made another video for you today to address your "shot picture" speculation. I wanted to show you some shots for which no shot picture exists but I realized that it wouldn't matter to you.
Why not? Because you will not attribute successful shotmaking to usage of the cte aiming system. There will never be any kind of demonstration that convinces you when you have decided to use the blanket of "subconscious adjustment" to explain success in shotmaking. In your mind cte aiming is an approximation method wherein the magic mind fills in the gaps.
Is it really too much to ask for proof of claims that are being made? Only works on a 2x1 table, requires no subjectivity.
The sad part is that I sincerely, with all of my heart wish that you could experience what it really feels like to make incredible shots, tough shots, tricky shots, bank shots under pressure, all without guessing.
Oh, OK. I've never done that I guess.
I just played 8 hours of one pocket. The cte banking is so good that it really expands the range of viable banks I feel confident in taking. If I diagrammed the banks I made tonight using CTE you either wouldn't believe me or would come up with some other reason other than cte usage to explain them. Me telling you that I did not and do not have any sort of "shot picture" library to draw from wouldn't matter to you as you will insist that I must have such a library which is where the shot successes come from.
The only evidence we have of your play is the match with Lou. Sorry to say, but you were not proving the value of CTE that day. You can come up with many excuses, but the bottom line is that thing that is so simple and automatic did not work that day.
Bias is a funny thing. We tend to remember the successes and forget the failures. Throw some balls out on the table and start banking these incredible banks on video and we can go from there. Of course it won't be conclusive but at least we know you are probably a good banker and not the KY state champion. I'd still prefer to see CTE newbie boogieman do it, but if you can do it then at least you've established the possibility.
I know that it isn't. But there is literally not any way, given my current resources to design experiments which would likely show you clearly that cte works on a 2*1 playing field as accurately as it is claimed to work.
So are you now saying that a 2x1 surface IS required, or not?
Anyway, so far, since Friday, I am up $2800 thanks to cte aiming. Deliberate conscious focus + cte aiming is a winning combination.
My $100 for Stan's book was well spent. CTE 3.0 rocks balls. I just love innovation.
With respect, completely irrelevant to this thread.