CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored

[boogieman]

I can only go on the most plausible explanation given that we have no proof of any kind that the 2x1 surface matters. Here it is: The only documented case of bank shots working better using CTE comes from Stan. We all know Stan is a Kentucky bank pool champion and played nothing but bank pool from the age of 8 to 16. I could go on with his bank pool resume. If boogieman starts draining 3 rail banks using a curtain then you will have my attention.

So even if we theorize that the reason for the curtain shots is Stan's skill and past banking experience, if he says it improves banks, how can I discount that? I mean, it's pretty much straight from the horse's mouth. I don't have the skill at banks to even evaluate the statement, yet here we have a literal champion player saying it's so. I think he's genuine and has the skill to analyze the situation. If he realizes it helps with banks, it most likely does, curtain shot showmanship or not.

I know you didn't imply this at all, but I don't think Stan is lying. I think he is being 100% honest, he truly believes it and I for one am in no position to question the methods of someone of his caliber. If you're that good at banks, and you say this thing works, there's a good chance there is something to it. Is it a magic bullet? I doubt it, but there is probably a good enough baseline there that allows you to run with it. I mean, think about it. Most aiming systems use one perception, however that may be arrived at. CTE uses 3, it's your personal perception, but it's literally on rails. You can aim a traditional bow and get damn near perfect with it, but it takes years to master, the bow must be an extension of your arm at this point. You've SAMA (shot a million arrows) The grip area is wearing smooth from use. Then here comes a dude with a compound with sights and nails a deer at 40 yards. He put the perception on rails so to speak. It's even more obvious with a gun sight as you have a rear and a front site. Both must be properly in place and in line of your vision to work. CTE seems like it gives you gun sights for your pool shot if you learn to see the correct reference points. Even with sites on your bow/gun/pool shot, it stands to reason that as you get more experience, you'll be better. Consistency is what the pros specialize in. They don't miss the easy shots. I'm sure they would like 3 references instead of one. 3 references let you average out any mistakes in aim. Just by having 3 references, you've tuned/averaged your deviations from true shot line, so better results should follow.

Three reference points that you force yourself to use (and can fall back on, rely on) will surely give better results. Everyone has made "subconscious" adjustments on a shot. Your brain thinks in pictures, what better way to get everything tuned up than by giving it 3 pictures instead of 1? Surely trusting 3 references isn't something woo woo, or isn't even something that requires as much faith as 1 reference point. Hell, if you think about it CTE only requires 33.3...% of faith that traditional aiming requires.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I've not shot the shots, I'm not yet a practitioner (or thorough tester) of CTE, but there is quite a lot of logic to it, but it does require some parallel thinking, I think this is what is meant by "out of the box." So far though, through what I've read in the book, it is presented in a logical and clear method. You might not understand something initially, but a chapter later it delves into whatever set the bullshit meter off in your head and it answers it quite logically. As long as the stuff in the book translates to a table with a relative amount of practice put in, it's golden.

Honestly the book is well done, it's probably good reference material for even the most die hard anti-CTE folks. It gives you a logical challenge to your current personal aiming system. What's the harm? Even if a person doesn't believe it, wouldn't it have the effect of making your belief in your current aiming system stronger? I think so. As far as "objective" aiming, I don't care. If someone worth their salt at pool says it works, it works, even if it requires a little personal commitment and practice/adjustment time. I'm not implying this isn't true of other systems too, but it all gets back to with 3 references, your chance for mistaken aim is less through the law of averages. If it automagically makes bonus banks, this alone is worth the price of admission. Hell, who wouldn't like to "accidentally" slop in a shot in 9B to keep their run going? Thanks everybody for the good discussion going on in this thread!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...when given the same perception (15 inside) both shots resolve in unique physical alignments.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

So even if we theorize that the reason for the curtain shots is Stan's skill and past banking experience, if he says it improves banks, how can I discount that? I mean, it's pretty much straight from the horse's mouth. I don't have the skill at banks to even evaluate the statement, yet here we have a literal champion player saying it's so. I think he's genuine and has the skill to analyze the situation. If he realizes it helps with banks, it most likely does, curtain shot showmanship or not.

I know you didn't imply this at all, but I don't think Stan is lying. I think he is being 100% honest, he truly believes it and I for one am in no position to question the methods of someone of his caliber. If you're that good at banks, and you say this thing works, there's a good chance there is something to it. Is it a magic bullet? I doubt it, but there is probably a good enough baseline there that allows you to run with it. I mean, think about it. Most aiming systems use one perception, however that may be arrived at. CTE uses 3, it's your personal perception, but it's literally on rails. You can aim a traditional bow and get damn near perfect with it, but it takes years to master, the bow must be an extension of your arm at this point. You've SAMA (shot a million arrows) The grip area is wearing smooth from use. Then here comes a dude with a compound with sights and nails a deer at 40 yards. He put the perception on rails so to speak. It's even more obvious with a gun sight as you have a rear and a front site. Both must be properly in place and in line of your vision to work. CTE seems like it gives you gun sights for your pool shot if you learn to see the correct reference points. Even with sites on your bow/gun/pool shot, it stands to reason that as you get more experience, you'll be better. Consistency is what the pros specialize in. They don't miss the easy shots. I'm sure they would like 3 references instead of one. 3 references let you average out any mistakes in aim. Just by having 3 references, you've tuned/averaged your deviations from true shot line, so better results should follow.

Three reference points that you force yourself to use (and can fall back on, rely on) will surely give better results. Everyone has made "subconscious" adjustments on a shot. Your brain thinks in pictures, what better way to get everything tuned up than by giving it 3 pictures instead of 1? Surely trusting 3 references isn't something woo woo, or isn't even something that requires as much faith as 1 reference point. Hell, if you think about it CTE only requires 33.3...% of faith that traditional aiming requires.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I've not shot the shots, I'm not yet a practitioner (or thorough tester) of CTE, but there is quite a lot of logic to it, but it does require some parallel thinking, I think this is what is meant by "out of the box." So far though, through what I've read in the book, it is presented in a logical and clear method. You might not understand something initially, but a chapter later it delves into whatever set the bullshit meter off in your head and it answers it quite logically. As long as the stuff in the book translates to a table with a relative amount of practice put in, it's golden.

Honestly the book is well done, it's probably good reference material for even the most die hard anti-CTE folks. It gives you a logical challenge to your current personal aiming system. What's the harm? Even if a person doesn't believe it, wouldn't it have the effect of making your belief in your current aiming system stronger? I think so. As far as "objective" aiming, I don't care. If someone worth their salt at pool says it works, it works, even if it requires a little personal commitment and practice/adjustment time. I'm not implying this isn't true of other systems too, but it all gets back to with 3 references, you're chance for mistaken aim is less through the law of averages. If it automagically makes bonus banks, this alone is worth the price of admission. Hell, who wouldn't like to "accidentally" slop in a shot in 9B to keep their run going? Thanks everybody for the good discussion going on in this thread!

Wow, that's almost as long as a JB post! Before I respond what is your level of play? I don't want to patronize you if you end up having more experience than I do, lol.

 

[boogieman]

Wow, that's almost as long as a JB post! Before I respond what is your level of play? I don't want to patronize you if you end up having more experience than I do, lol.

Hard to say. I can make the best people in my area work like hell to beat me, but they usually do. It's a bit of a disadvantage for me because I get them off of cruise control and really buckling down, but I'm not quite at the point to be a real threat if they get their head in the game. I have the bad habit of giving them enough challenges and traps to make them pay attention.

I'd say I'm better than about 75% of the locals, but I have no idea how I'd rank outside of the small pond that is my local area. I've played since I was about 8 years old casually. Got serious in my late teens, played solid for 5 years, took a few years off, played a LOT for about 6 years, took 10 years off and have been back to playing again for about a year. I know a lot more than I can perform on the table, still getting back into the swing of things.

I struggle with consistency because of the long times of not playing and the fact that I usually have to rebuild my game after I get back into playing. I'd say if I were more consistent, had better pattern recognition, and learned to bank consistently, I'd be a much better player. If I had these things in order, my matches would be less about games of attrition and more about switching on the offense and catching a gear.

So I don't know my skill level, I'm not an idiot on things pool related, but you would probably feel more than comfortable playing me for a $20 set!

 

[Dan White]

Hard to say. I can make the best people in my area work like hell to beat me, but they usually do. It's a bit of a disadvantage for me because I get them off of cruise control and really buckling down, but I'm not quite at the point to be a real threat if they get their head in the game. I have the bad habit of giving them enough challenges and traps to make them pay attention.

I'd say I'm better than about 75% of the locals, but I have no idea how I'd rank outside of the small pond that is my local area. I've played since I was about 8 years old casually. Got serious in my late teens, played solid for 5 years, took a few years off, played a LOT for about 6 years, took 10 years off and have been back to playing again for about a year. I know a lot more than I can perform on the table, still getting back into the swing of things.

I struggle with consistency because of the long times of not playing and the fact that I usually have to rebuild my game after I get back into playing. I'd say if I were more consistent, had better pattern recognition, and learned to bank consistently, I'd be a much better player. If I had these things in order, my matches would be less about games of attrition and more about switching on the offense and catching a gear.

So I don't know my skill level, I'm not an idiot on things pool related, but you would probably feel more than comfortable playing me for a $20 set!

Are you a runout player, meaning when you have an open table in 8 or 9 ball do you fully expect to run out? Ever play straight pool?

 

[boogieman]

Are you a runout player, meaning when you have an open table in 8 or 9 ball do you fully expect to run out? Ever play straight pool?

I'm not a runout player unless the circumstances are right. I've ran a handful of 9B racks in the past year, but I can usually get the 6 or 7 off the table before messing it up. 9B isn't really my game as I've been playing it for less than a year. It's fun, but I lack in pattern recognition and knowing the correct routes. I often make it way harder on myself by having to string together a series of trick shots rather than taking more natural shape. It's fun but I'm very much a beginner in 9 ball.

8 ball... I can run out if the table is right, but I generally try to be more strategic to guarantee a win. For me, 8 ball usually takes a a couple innings at the table, depending on problem areas. Every once in a while, I'll get a good layout after break and run them out, but I've learned I'm more likely to win if I play smarter instead of leaving my opponent wide open with only 2 of my balls left.

I've not seriously played straight pool, but I like it.

I'm kind of in a strange boat. I still have a ton of knowledge on stuff like safety play, but after taking 10 years off, I'm just not at the point I can pull it off yet. Some areas of my game are better than ever, others are still needing work. I'm still putting the work in to get better and more consistent. I can run the last 6 or so balls just fine in 8 ball in many circumstances. The people I play are just brutal, when I come to the table, it's usually a kick or half masse to get a shot, hard to run out in those situations.

So if it's a half way nice layout with maybe one cluster and I'm shooting constantly it's a danger to let me shoot, but if I'm having consistency issues that day you might get a few laughs at me missing shots. Sorry for the book here, but I honestly don't know what level I'm at or how I stack up in the bigger ponds. Basically here the best players see I can shoot decent and either want to play me or teach me. They don't fear me, but they know I'm going to make them focus hard and not just coast. If I catch a gear, I can win, but if I'm lacking consistency I'll make a fool of myself. I'm trying to absorb things like the patterns they choose. They've had me sub on weekly leagues (not handicapped) and invited me to go along on some pool trips an hour away with half a dozen guys or so. I'm not really the best judge of where I sit as a pool player.

 

[Dan White]

So even if we theorize that the reason for the curtain shots is Stan's skill and past banking experience, if he says it improves banks, how can I discount that? I mean, it's pretty much straight from the horse's mouth. I don't have the skill at banks to even evaluate the statement, yet here we have a literal champion player saying it's so. I think he's genuine and has the skill to analyze the situation. If he realizes it helps with banks, it most likely does, curtain shot showmanship or not.

I know you didn't imply this at all, but I don't think Stan is lying. I think he is being 100% honest, he truly believes it and I for one am in no position to question the methods of someone of his caliber. If you're that good at banks, and you say this thing works, there's a good chance there is something to it. Is it a magic bullet? I doubt it, but there is probably a good enough baseline there that allows you to run with it. I mean, think about it. Most aiming systems use one perception, however that may be arrived at. CTE uses 3, it's your personal perception, but it's literally on rails. You can aim a traditional bow and get damn near perfect with it, but it takes years to master, the bow must be an extension of your arm at this point. You've SAMA (shot a million arrows) The grip area is wearing smooth from use. Then here comes a dude with a compound with sights and nails a deer at 40 yards. He put the perception on rails so to speak. It's even more obvious with a gun sight as you have a rear and a front site. Both must be properly in place and in line of your vision to work. CTE seems like it gives you gun sights for your pool shot if you learn to see the correct reference points. Even with sites on your bow/gun/pool shot, it stands to reason that as you get more experience, you'll be better. Consistency is what the pros specialize in. They don't miss the easy shots. I'm sure they would like 3 references instead of one. 3 references let you average out any mistakes in aim. Just by having 3 references, you've tuned/averaged your deviations from true shot line, so better results should follow.

Three reference points that you force yourself to use (and can fall back on, rely on) will surely give better results. Everyone has made "subconscious" adjustments on a shot. Your brain thinks in pictures, what better way to get everything tuned up than by giving it 3 pictures instead of 1? Surely trusting 3 references isn't something woo woo, or isn't even something that requires as much faith as 1 reference point. Hell, if you think about it CTE only requires 33.3...% of faith that traditional aiming requires.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I've not shot the shots, I'm not yet a practitioner (or thorough tester) of CTE, but there is quite a lot of logic to it, but it does require some parallel thinking, I think this is what is meant by "out of the box." So far though, through what I've read in the book, it is presented in a logical and clear method. You might not understand something initially, but a chapter later it delves into whatever set the bullshit meter off in your head and it answers it quite logically. As long as the stuff in the book translates to a table with a relative amount of practice put in, it's golden.

Honestly the book is well done, it's probably good reference material for even the most die hard anti-CTE folks. It gives you a logical challenge to your current personal aiming system. What's the harm? Even if a person doesn't believe it, wouldn't it have the effect of making your belief in your current aiming system stronger? I think so. As far as "objective" aiming, I don't care. If someone worth their salt at pool says it works, it works, even if it requires a little personal commitment and practice/adjustment time. I'm not implying this isn't true of other systems too, but it all gets back to with 3 references, your chance for mistaken aim is less through the law of averages. If it automagically makes bonus banks, this alone is worth the price of admission. Hell, who wouldn't like to "accidentally" slop in a shot in 9B to keep their run going? Thanks everybody for the good discussion going on in this thread!

Sounds like you are a decent player with a few holes in your game like the rest of us. If you were a beginner it might be hard to discuss these things with you.

Two reactions to your post. First is the business with the three lines. The inventor of CTE was Hal Houle. Hal was an eccentric guy who would call you by phone while you were at a table and talk you through his various methods of using CTE while also regaling you of stories about his buddy Ralph Greenleaf. His method consisted of the ABC lines on the object ball and the center and edge of the cue ball. With these lines he said every shot could be made. One line from, say, cb edge to A. That's one line, not three and this method was supposed to be what professional players were using and not telling anybody. The three lines didn't come about until 20 years later with the new book. Prior to that Stan was producing DVD1 which utilized two lines, called "Pro1," and a pivot of the cue. DVD2 then came out and fixed what mistakes were acknowledged in DVD1. Still two lines. I've asked the question but it isn't clear why Hal's method had to be improved upon and why 2 and now 3 lines accomplish that. Maybe 4 lines will make it even better? Kidding.

Second, the main benefit of CTE over all other methods is the claim that most all shots can be made with just those aim lines from cb edge to ABC and also cb enter to ob edge. This is to be combined with what was a manual pivot, then visual pivot and now turning of the face. The shooter does not have to be able to aim at the pocket because CTE will do that for you. OK, fine. Now let's say the cb is on the foot spot and the ob is at the center of the table and let's say the "solution" to the shot in CTE terms is a B perception or a 30 degree perception it is also called. Ball goes in. Fine. Set the balls up again but now move both balls up table 6 inches, or maybe move the ob to the left by two inches. Logically, if you use the same perception the ball will miss the pocket because you are aligning the two balls with the same B perception. But, according to Stan, something "mysterious" happens (his words). BECAUSE THE TABLE IS 2X1 the same B perception for the second shot will now send the ob along a different trajectory, but ALWAYS to that corner pocket. Huh? Reread if that didn't sink in. This is why I thought it would be interesting to look into the 2x1 claim a little closer. The only mention of 2x1 is from Hal in his original statement on how CTE works. No proof, no supporting logic, nothing. Everybody just says it is so for 20 years, and it isn't about bank shots.

One thing was clear to me from talking to Hal. He didn't care how you stroked the cue as long as you lined up the center or edge to A,B or C. What I really think he was doing was reversing the normal aiming process. Normally you stroke the cue straight and you aim at a wide variety of locations on the ob to pocket balls. Picking the correct location is learned by experience until it is automatic. With CTE you aim at a small number of places on the ob for every shot, making that part of the process the same over and over (what Stan would call objective). But now you have to vary the angle of your cue instead of shooting straight like before. You now are playing by figuring out how much to pivot your cue to pocket the ball. Eventually this feels natural but in reality it is no more objective than the traditional method. Either you are learning which spot to hit on the ob or you are learning how much to pivot your cue. In reality, I believe the cue is not necessarily pivoted, but simply placed in the right position to pocket the ball despite what the ABC alignment wants you to do.

Maybe something in there made sense?

 

[boogieman]

Second, the main benefit of CTE over all other methods is the claim that most all shots can be made with just those aim lines from cb edge to ABC and also cb enter to ob edge. This is to be combined with what was a manual pivot, then visual pivot and now turning of the face. The shooter does not have to be able to aim at the pocket because CTE will do that for you. OK, fine. Now let's say the cb is on the foot spot and the ob is at the center of the table and let's say the "solution" to the shot in CTE terms is a B perception or a 30 degree perception it is also called. Ball goes in. Fine. Set the balls up again but now move both balls up table 6 inches, or maybe move the ob to the left by two inches. Logically, if you use the same perception the ball will miss the pocket because you are aligning the two balls with the same B perception. But, according to Stan, something "mysterious" happens (his words). BECAUSE THE TABLE IS 2X1 the same B perception for the second shot will now send the ob along a different trajectory, but ALWAYS to that corner pocket. Huh? Reread if that didn't sink in. This is why I thought it would be interesting to look into the 2x1 claim a little closer. The only mention of 2x1 is from Hal in his original statement on how CTE works. No proof, no supporting logic, nothing. Everybody just says it is so for 20 years, and it isn't about bank shots.

I'll take the chicken sh** answer and say I don't know because I honestly haven't put any time on my table with CTE yet. I know it's a poor excuse but I'm in the middle of trying to redo my table. I don't understand this, without trying it I'd guess you're going to make adjustments with your stroke to do so, but I'll wait to see how it feels at the table. Confidence is major in pool. I've had guys show me how to bank years ago, and they say oh, it's a dead bank, but unless you hit it with the correct spin and speed it shortens or lengthens. Now I don't think the person telling me this was wrong, it does go in nicely if you hit it like they say, but you have to put in time to adjust to the shot. I'm honestly trying to keep an open mind because I'd like to give a neutral review on it. I have the curse of overthinking things, so I doubt there is much that escapes me if it's off key. If I'm dead honest the only time I don't overthink things is when I get in stroke at the table. I don't understand how a certain contact point/aim line can sink a ball if it's not on the correct traditional aim line so this will be a learning experience once I get to the table. A pure hypothesis is that you have to adjust with the stroke/pivot but to me that doesn't mean the system would be bunk. I'm trying to divorce the system that is presented in the book from any previous videos, discussions etc. Love or hate the system, it leads to some interesting discussions and maybe some popcorn munching drama. I really am trying to remain neutral, I have no skin in the game and don't care to pick sides. It's pool and supposed to be fun. I get that you can adjust a ball, make it throw, masse, etc depending on how and where you hit it, all I can say is when I try it, I'll try to be as honest as I can with my thoughts on the system.

I don't talk for Stan or anybody for that matter so don't take anything I say as the gospel fact of CTE, I'm still learning. What I read in the book, and put together in my mind, I think it works like a rifle. Back sights, front sights and your eyeballs and how you line them up. This part makes perfect sense. I don't know how I feel about the ABC alignment thing, only shooting the shots and putting some practice in will tell.

One thing was clear to me from talking to Hal. He didn't care how you stroked the cue as long as you lined up the center or edge to A,B or C. What I really think he was doing was reversing the normal aiming process. Normally you stroke the cue straight and you aim at a wide variety of locations on the ob to pocket balls. Picking the correct location is learned by experience until it is automatic. With CTE you aim at a small number of places on the ob for every shot, making that part of the process the same over and over (what Stan would call objective). But now you have to vary the angle of your cue instead of shooting straight like before. You now are playing by figuring out how much to pivot your cue to pocket the ball. Eventually this feels natural but in reality it is no more objective than the traditional method. Either you are learning which spot to hit on the ob or you are learning how much to pivot your cue. In reality, I believe the cue is not necessarily pivoted, but simply placed in the right position to pocket the ball despite what the ABC alignment wants you to do.

Maybe something in there made sense?

I have an open mind, I'm not discounting this as being a possibility. I too am very curious about this phenomena. I don't fully understand how or if it even works so I'm pretty interested in trying the method.

As for the 2:1 thing, I get what you're saying, I don't see how it makes sense on a normal shot to the pocket. I think it could make sense for finding multi rail paths to other pockets.

 

[Dan White]

I'll take the chicken sh** answer and say I don't know because I honestly haven't put any time on my table with CTE yet. I know it's a poor excuse but I'm in the middle of trying to redo my table. I don't understand this, without trying it I'd guess you're going to make adjustments with your stroke to do so, but I'll wait to see how it feels at the table. Confidence is major in pool. I've had guys show me how to bank years ago, and they say oh, it's a dead bank, but unless you hit it with the correct spin and speed it shortens or lengthens. Now I don't think the person telling me this was wrong, it does go in nicely if you hit it like they say, but you have to put in time to adjust to the shot. I'm honestly trying to keep an open mind because I'd like to give a neutral review on it. I have the curse of overthinking things, so I doubt there is much that escapes me if it's off key. If I'm dead honest the only time I don't overthink things is when I get in stroke at the table. I don't understand how a certain contact point/aim line can sink a ball if it's not on the correct traditional aim line so this will be a learning experience once I get to the table. A pure hypothesis is that you have to adjust with the stroke/pivot but to me that doesn't mean the system would be bunk. I'm trying to divorce the system that is presented in the book from any previous videos, discussions etc. Love or hate the system, it leads to some interesting discussions and maybe some popcorn munching drama. I really am trying to remain neutral, I have no skin in the game and don't care to pick sides. It's pool and supposed to be fun. I get that you can adjust a ball, make it throw, masse, etc depending on how and where you hit it, all I can say is when I try it, I'll try to be as honest as I can with my thoughts on the system.

I don't talk for Stan or anybody for that matter so don't take anything I say as the gospel fact of CTE, I'm still learning. What I read in the book, and put together in my mind, I think it works like a rifle. Back sights, front sights and your eyeballs and how you line them up. This part makes perfect sense. I don't know how I feel about the ABC alignment thing, only shooting the shots and putting some practice in will tell.


I have an open mind, I'm not discounting this as being a possibility. I too am very curious about this phenomena. I don't fully understand how or if it even works so I'm pretty interested in trying the method.

As for the 2:1 thing, I get what you're saying, I don't see how it makes sense on a normal shot to the pocket. I think it could make sense for finding multi rail paths to other pockets.

I think you have a good attitude. Read the book and forget everything else as far as instruction goes. History is useful for other kinds of evaluations. I found, early on, that the claims sounded very interesting and even plausible. I mean, we are amazed by things we didn't think were possible all the time, right? In this case, finally putting it on the table and doing it was eye opening, as in, well, I won't say. Just get to a table and try it making sure that you do it the same each time without trying to make the ball go in.

 

[born2push]

I understand what you are saying but that is not what Stan is saying. In my example above, it is not a 1x1 surface. It is 1.88x1 but it could be anything for discussion purposes. The discussion of bank shots is kind of an afterthought or bonus that if you pick the wrong perception the ball will bank into another pocket. That is not the main selling point of CTE. The selling point is that you can pick one perception and pocket balls with a wide variety of shot angles without regard to aiming at the pocket. For example, a 30 degree perception will pocket balls with different shot angles BECAUSE the table dimension is 2x1.

Seems like i remember Stan saying that cte helps you find the angle of the shot in a repeatable way. I am probably a 6 or 7 out of 10 on my mastery of cte. So the the part about the 2 to 1ratio helps because the perception of the angles are simular on different size tables.

Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

When the question is "Why is a 2x1 surface with pockets at the corners required for CTE?" an answer like "of course it works" is not an answer. I have yet to see any proof that if a ball misses one pocket that it will track to another.


Yes, that is the question I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Is it the 90 degrees that matters or the 2x1 because every odd shape still has 90 degree corners?



I can only go on the most plausible explanation given that we have no proof of any kind that the 2x1 surface matters. Here it is: The only documented case of bank shots working better using CTE comes from Stan. We all know Stan is a Kentucky bank pool champion and played nothing but bank pool from the age of 8 to 16. I could go on with his bank pool resume. If boogieman starts draining 3 rail banks using a curtain then you will have my attention.


Well I'm surprised and impressed that you would make that statement. Are you agreeing with this or are you simply saying that that is what the skeptics like me believe?


I agree. If Joe Blow banks miraculously better after learning CTE then that is interesting to understand better. I don't see that happening on youtube anywhere but I could be wrong. You also have to factor in that simply practicing banks will make you better at them. I don't think that is a trivial statement.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

 

[JB Cases]

When the question is "Why is a 2x1 surface with pockets at the corners required for CTE?" an answer like "of course it works" is not an answer. I have yet to see any proof that if a ball misses one pocket that it will track to another.


Yes, that is the question I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Is it the 90 degrees that matters or the 2x1 because every odd shape still has 90 degree corners?



I can only go on the most plausible explanation given that we have no proof of any kind that the 2x1 surface matters. Here it is: The only documented case of bank shots working better using CTE comes from Stan. We all know Stan is a Kentucky bank pool champion and played nothing but bank pool from the age of 8 to 16. I could go on with his bank pool resume. If boogieman starts draining 3 rail banks using a curtain then you will have my attention.


Well I'm surprised and impressed that you would make that statement. Are you agreeing with this or are you simply saying that that is what the skeptics like me believe?


I agree. If Joe Blow banks miraculously better after learning CTE then that is interesting to understand better. I don't see that happening on youtube anywhere but I could be wrong. You also have to factor in that simply practicing banks will make you better at them. I don't think that is a trivial statement.

That's because you don't have before and after test data.

Anecdotal evidence isn't enough for you. Demonstrations of banking prowess aren't convincing. To you it seems that people reporting success are either dishonest or self-deluded.

So given that environment there is pretty much zero way to convince you that cte aiming improves shotmaking substantially.

All I care about is playing well when I play. The balls don't lie to me. I fully believe that if you ever were to get together with someone who has mastered cte that your perspectives would change. Until then though I don't see much hope for you to become adept enough to experience the results that that proficient cte users are getting.

 

[JB Cases]

I believe that even Hal's original blurb on the angles says that the 2x1 table is made up of 2 1x1 squares so I imagine Stan would say it works on a half table the same, but that is conjecture. Anyway, this is really more about what happens when the table is something other than 2x1 and not specifically 1x1.

Of course bank systems would still work but they would have to be altered. I don't think you could use the diamonds in the same way because the foot rail diamonds would be different from the long rail. However, using the mirror system using two tables next to each other would still work if those odd tables were butted next to each other.

I think it is safe to say that banking systems do require a 2x1 surface because the diamonds need to be equal distances on all sides of the surface. In CTE, though, the diamonds are not used so it is not clear why banking only works on a 2x1 surface. If a particular shot is at the proper angle to be pocketed using a 15 degree perception then I could see that in that situation if you use a 30 degree perception it might send the ball to a different pocket. If you move the balls off of that position a little, though, then that would no longer hold true. It would be simple to diagram and find out.



Nope, not going there! Trying to keep this civil.

The shortest answer as to why banking works in cte is that whatever the cte solution is for a shot directly to a pocket the opposite solution is often correct for a bank in the opposite pocket.

A longer, and admittedly unsatisfying, answer for you, is that cte solutions track towards 90 degree corners. Until you have started to use cte for real, not just dabbling, and you think to try a three rail to the side, a one rail from a stupid angle, etc.... Too many to list. Just that they go... You look at it, cycle through the perceptions/visuals and pick one that is likely to work and it does... Banks you previously would not have tried because of unpredictable results... Now are either going in or barely missing.

Why? How? I don't know and neither do you. But what I do know is that I am making ridiculous banks with greater frequency without having had to practice them all by rote hundreds of times each.

All that might not be worth anything to you but for me it is deeply satisfying as a pool player.

 

[lfigueroa]

...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.

"...automatically turns on some sort of subconscious targeting system..."

Thank God for CTE! Now I understand how I can throw that wadded up piece of paper into the trash can with so much accuracy. (I can even use the wall for a backboard, so maybe that counts for a bank shots.) Now I understand how, when I played catch with a nephew, I can throw it to him so accurately. Of course he must be using CTE too because he tosses them back pretty good. I must be using it to putt at golf and playing tennis, aiming those backhand shots down the line. Of course there are the everyday uses of CTE, like aiming my car and keeping it in between the dotted lines on the highway.

The brain has it's own aiming system. Who knew. CTE critics have only been saying this for 20 years and *finally* there is this admission.

Lou Figueroa

 

[mohrt]

If boogieman starts draining 3 rail banks using a curtain then you will have my attention.

wait, who is boogieman?

 

[mohrt]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

pj
chgo

It's not insanity. You get the exact same result for each and every CB/OB position on the table. You "do" the same thing with your eyes and the AL/SL. Your perception gives you the unique result, you don't have to "do" or "think" about doing something different for each shot.

 

[mohrt]

Why do you guys always conclude that I haven't practiced CTE? You think that if I am not making all the shots then I am doing it wrong. I say if I AM making all the shots then I am fudging the shot. I have used it enough to know two things, for me. One is that it is difficult to find the A and C locations while also finding the CTE line. I believe there is A LOT of room for error/subjectivity there, and the other is that when I do get a shot dialed in, like a 15 degree perception, then move the balls a little the shot no longer goes in.

There should not be room for subjectivity. Error is on the shooter. It takes practice no doubt, this is different from conventional aiming.

This is why I put out there "A CTE shot for you to try.". It is a 30 inside, probably the easiest perception of all of them. I gave very explicit instructions how to pocket the ball using CTE. If you have any questions specifically about that test shot, that is what the thread is for. Once that specific shot was cleared of any questions or misgivings, I was planning to move to another shot type. There is new and more defining information around the CTE process since the book, and I included them. So now its time to work with all the information, such as stepping the cueball. A crucial component to make CTE much more clearly defined.

So if you would, I would like you to focus on that specific test shot, and ask questions about it specifically until we resolve them before moving on to other shots. I also made a video shooting the same perception from a few different ball positions on the table. Feel free to use any one of those positions for your questions.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It's not insanity. You get the exact same result for each and every CB/OB position on the table. You "do" the same thing with your eyes and the AL/SL. Your perception gives you the unique result, you don't have to "do" or "think" about doing something different for each shot.

No, your subconscious does that for you, just like every other method - as rational players have been saying for 20+ years.

It's another method like all the others - get over it.

pj
chgo

 

[mohrt]

You call it subconscious, I call it perception. The SL and AL look perfect from one spot. There is nothing about my subjective choosing that changes it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The SL and AL look perfect from one spot.

Describe what "perfect" looks like.

pj
chgo