CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
wait, who is boogieman?
I'm your worst nightmare. 😂 ;) :)

Nah, I'm just some dude with no CTE experience and no skin in the game, no involvement in the past arguments and such. I bought the book and am reading it, going to try to give as an objective as I can review/opinion on if it works as intended. I'm also in the middle of repairing my table so it will be a bit.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
That was not the reason this place was created, lol.
Exactly the reason. If it were just those interested in learning cte aiming discussing it the threads on the main forum would have run their course and faded from view. But the malicious critics kept those threads alive and turned them into flame wars.

Thus, the aiming forum was born because trolls could not stand to see anyone being exuberant about the success they were experiencing.

Oh, you'll say it's because cte doesn't work and those seeing great results were self deluded and that you are just doing community service..... But we all are clear that it's just garden variety trolling that started on other message boards long before the topic came to azb.

But thanks to your defamation against Stan we now have an amazing resource for cte information. In this case there trolling was the catalyst for creating great content that will long outlive the creators and benefit pool long into the future.

When you and your fellow knockers are dead and forgotten the names Hal Houle and Stan Shuffett will be known and their work discussed and used to help players improve their aiming substantially.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
😂

An aiming system that “was never supposed to be”.

And you want to be taken seriously...

😂

pj
chgo
😂

An aiming system that “was never supposed to be”.

And you want to be taken seriously...

😂

pj
chgo
Was is supposed to be part of pool instruction? I don't recall anything like cte being part of pool before Hal showed up. So while I get out that a statement like "was never supposed to be" upsets/amuses you it is simply a person's opinion and not material in any way to the usefulness of the system.

"Magical twisting powder". I guess you can't separate the usefulness of chalk to pool from the word magical.

Of course chalk is not magic. But it certainly would appear magical to those who had never seen the results of consistently applied side spin.

Once again you knock exuberance in your quest to denigrate that which you do not understand.

Frankly, I personally do not care about being taken seriously by you. Your opinion about anything pool related is worthless to me and worthless to pool. There is literally nothing that you have contributed that is of any benefit to pool players. I used to think you were at least a cool guy who likes to talk pool and plays decently but in the end you turned out to be just another troll only interested in being a knocker.

Every week I introduce a few more people to CTE. People who do not care who you are or what you think.

Stan has given his time and effort to pool in order to help others improve as players in super beneficial way. All you have ever done on this subject is follow him and nip at his heels as he gets things done.

You clearly don't need to share our enthusiasm. You are not required to be supportive in any way. Your criticism is noted and filed in exactly the place where it deserves to be, in the trash.

Basically, to rephrase a popular bumper sticker, the critic who says a system can't work should get out of the way of the players who are using that system successfully.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I think you need to group similar shots to claim a 2-1 convergence. A single, direct to pocket shot has no such relationship. I see that the table shape is more relevant to banks but banks bring the cinch factor into dominance. IOW if you don't manufacture a bank, it don't go.
Not sure where you are getting claims of convergence at. I agree that 2:1 is relevant more for banks than for direct shots.

Regarding cinching, that term is not specific but I would say it is generally defined as placing the majority of emphasis on making the shot over position. I don't agree that it applies to banks in the sense that one has to manufacture bank shots.

Bank shots are governed primarily by angle of incidence and speed. Almost every bank shot can be made using cte aiming to find the shot line. In some cases due to conditions the aim would need to be adjusted from the "perfect condition" 2d line to allow for higher or lower speed and/or the application of spin for the purposes of applying sidespin to the object ball or position play for the cue ball.

In other words banks don't need to be manufactured, just aimed correctly with whatever speed and spin is needed to get the desired results.

There are some paradigms in pool that deserve much more inspection because they don't necessarily accurately represent what is actually happening. That's the central contention that you all have with cte. However you also espouse concepts that are merely repeating convention without really having a justification in my opinion.


Yes but the system settings resolve at 2 parallel lines and estimation in 15 degree increments and further must be calibrated on a shot specific basis. Same ole spectre of over complexity.
The use of lines formed by the perceptual connections of objective reference points plus a specific action called a visual sweep does indeed resolve to the shot being faced but does not require calibration per shot.

A better way to describe it would be four buttons and four switches. For any shot that can be pocketed with a center ball hit some combination of a button push and a switch flip will work. The operator only has to learn what types of shots require which button/switch combinations.

With sufficient practice this becomes fairly easy and mostly automatic. Which in turn has the beneficial effect of allowing a player to cinch shots much easier because any doubt about being on the correct shot line is removed.

That is at least my personal experience and it matches the experiences that better players than myself have reported.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The shots will go into the upper corner pockets. One straight in and the by way of a bank.
I thought these were both ETA 15 degree perceptions per Stan's video, both into the same upper corner pocket. If they are not then what would you use for the bottom shot of the two, the red ball, ETB?

The balls cannot be made with real CTE in the bottom pockets, they would come up approximately a diamond shy of the pockets. I did the test using CTE and got the results, can you do the test? Of course you can't or you wouldn't have asked the question. So the correct answer is that CTE will work on an altered table but not in it's entirety
If you want to shoot into the bottom right corner couldn't you simply use a sharper angle perception like CTC? Just pretend you cut the 6 inches off the top long rail instead of the bottom long rail. What would be the difference?
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You are so unbelievably disingenuous.

CTE doesn't work ONLY because of the size of the playing field is 2x1. However it should be stupidly obvious to you that it would work exactly the same on your two example shots to the same corner even if you cut off an unused part of the table.

In fact, had you bothered to REALLY LISTEN then you would have already known that the answer you (insincerely) claim to seek was already given to you in the very video that you chose to use in the first post.

Right here:
AZ seems to remove any time stamps from the youtube videos. Can you tell me the starting minutes and seconds so I know what you are referring to?
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Stan Shuffett's nonsensical "opinion" about his own nonsensical "system" - which you, of course, defend as gospel.

lol

pj
chgo
Well it's not like you are likely to do or create anything worth discussing or learning.

Nah, not gospel, I have a pool table and I apply the objective aiming method and make more shots with more consistency. I defend that.

To be clear I don't care if any other super nobody says that cte works. I started learning it because I know that what Hal taught me works and thus i had confidence that cte was likely to work as well or better than what I learned from Hal.

But now, ten years later, I can do a video chat with a super nobody who knows cte and that person can tell me to set up a shot and tell me the perception and sweep and I will be dead nuts perfect on the shot line. No fidgeting, no guessing, just two people using the same framework to approach a task.

No hitting a million balls or endless repetition. Just ball coordinates and the aiming key. And it is bi-directional as I can do the same for them.

In other words, the collective experience with the system allows for players to use that framework to grow beyond what they can accomplish individually. You can never ever tell a person how to aim any given shot consistently via remote control unless that shot already has an objective aiming reference such as a coordinate pair that is a half ball or full ball hit.

So it's not any wonder that you don't understand and seemingly can't learn CTE. When you think it's no different or better than ghost ball or your fidget till you (maybe) get it way then it's clear that you aren't going to be able to converse about cte intelligently or honestly.

But, as I told Lou, thank you for doing your part to keep the conversation going. Even bad critics operating from bad premises serve a purpose and yours is to keep providing a reason to talk about the awesome power of objective aiming and the Center to Edge objective aiming system.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
AZ seems to remove any time stamps from the youtube videos. Can you tell me the starting minutes and seconds so I know what you are referring to?
Yes I will do that for you. Got to get to my laptop. I will edit this post with right timestamp.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
I can do a video chat with a super nobody who knows cte and that person can tell me to set up a shot and tell me the perception and sweep and I will be dead nuts perfect on the shot line.
Of course that has nothing to do with the fact that you can see the target pocket/cut angle and have shot that cut angle a zillion times.

Tell us the perception for a 35° cut.

pj
chgo
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Of course that has nothing to do with the fact that you can see the target pocket/cut angle and have shot that cut angle a zillion times.

Tell us the perception for a 35° cut.

pj
chgo
Show me how to know that the cut is 35°

You show me the shot I will tell you the perception and a cte user will shoot it.
 

Valiant Thor

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The real differences are that it's overcomplicated, overhyped and irrationally explained compared to others. Obviously it's a viable aiming tool for those who like it, but despite those differences it "works" just like all the rest - by using "landmarks" to help you estimate/memorize shot alignments through repetitive practice. If you don't like hearing that truth, maybe you should consider advertis.. uh... promot... uh... talking about CTE someplace with fewer realists around.

pj
chgo
How many hours have you spent at the table using/trying cte? Just a number please.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member

CTE seems a little short on qualifications.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I thought these were both ETA 15 degree perceptions per Stan's video, both into the same upper corner pocket. If they are not then what would you use for the bottom shot of the two, the red ball, ETB?
They both do go in the upper corner pocket. They both also bank in the upper corner pocket. They do not go in the lower corner pockets using CTE
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you want to shoot into the bottom right corner couldn't you simply use a sharper angle perception like CTC? Just pretend you cut the 6 inches off the top long rail instead of the bottom long rail. What would be the difference?
We don't use CTC with CTE. First you ask to fudge the table, then you want to fudge the system. Wait i'll try the shots with a baseball bat and a hockey puck, would that make you happy,lol.

Seriously whether you guys believe it or not, CTE connects to the pockets exactly as Stan says. You and your friends expert minds haven't proven anything different. Lots of keyboard thoughts don't change that. You haven't even posted a keyboard drawing that would invalidate Stan's claim.
And all this garbage about changing the size of the table makes Stan's claim more and more valid. It shows that you have ZERO evidence to dispute it.
 
Last edited:
Top