CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored

[mohrt]

Describe what "perfect" looks like.

pj
chgo

If you move your eyes left or right, you lose one or both lines being perfectly "on". In the test shot I posted, that would be CB edge to OB center, and CB center to OB edge. It it is important that left eye is dominant for the left line and right eye dominant for right line. If you angle your face to the cutting edge, that should happen naturally without much thought to it. But it's something you can check during learning process.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you move your eyes left or right, you lose one or both lines being perfectly "on".

What does “perfectly on” mean?

pj
chgo

 

[mohrt]

What does “perfectly on” mean?

pj
chgo

It means CB edge aligns with OB center, and OB edge aligns with CB center (for given shot I mentioned)

 

[mohrt]

Related question: If you stand behind the CB such that the CB and OB centers align perfectly, do you consider that objective or subjective? Do you think there is more than one place that looks right?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It means CB edge aligns with OB center, and OB edge aligns with CB center (for given shot I mentioned)

Does that mean each eye is physically in line with one of those lines, so you're looking down each line like with rifle sites?

In other words:
- CB edge, OB center and one eye are all on one line
- CB center, OB edge and the other eye are all on the other line

...right?

pj
chgo

 

[mohrt]

Does that mean each eye is physically in line with one of those lines, so you're looking down each line like with rifle sites?

In other words:
- CB edge, OB center and one eye are all on one line
- CB center, OB edge and the other eye are all on the other line

...right?

pj
chgo

From an explanatory and procedural point, yes that is what you are doing. You put your head/eyes in a place where the two lines look as perfectly aligned as possible. That doesn't necessarily mean both eyes will be directly behind those lines like rifle sites on a 2D drawing (and no great way to confirm that anyways), but they will LOOK like they are perfectly lined up from a perspective view. It's one place only for any given CB/OB position.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

From an explanatory and procedural point, yes that is what you are doing. You put your head/eyes in a place where the two lines look as perfectly aligned as possible. That doesn't necessarily mean both eyes will be directly behind those lines like rifle sites on a 2D drawing (and no great way to confirm that anyways), but they will LOOK like they are perfectly lined up from a perspective view. It's one place only for any given CB/OB position.

They can't "look like" they're perfectly lined up unless they are perfectly lined up. Otherwise you're just choosing the non-lined-up view that you've learned through trial and error is right for the cut angle at hand.

Like. Every. Other. Aiming. Method.

pj
chgo

 

[mohrt]

They can't "look like" they're perfectly lined up unless they are perfectly lined up. Otherwise you're just choosing the non-lined-up view that you've learned through trial and error is right for the cut angle at hand.

Like. Every. Other. Aiming. Method.

pj
chgo

I'll repeat myself. There is one and only one place where the SL and AL are in perfect alignment. I don't go guessing every time I approach a new shot. And this is verified by a shot line that pockets the ball. So you can keep going in circles with your explanations, it doesn't change the fact that one and only one alignment for SL and AL on any given CB/OB orientation results in a shot line for the given pocket. If I had to guess on every shot it would not be consistent. And I'm not choosing "does this perfect alignment look right or does this one or this one?" There is no choice. There is one. And they do "look like" they are perfect. It's a parallax view. It is the CTE alignment that takes me to the shot line, the shot line doesn't take me to the CTE alignment as you seem to suggest.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'll repeat myself. There is one and only one place where the SL and AL are in perfect alignment. I don't go guessing every time I approach a new shot. And this is verified by a shot line that pockets the ball. So you can keep going in circles with your explanations, it doesn't change the fact that one and only one alignment for SL and AL on any given CB/OB orientation results in a shot line for the given pocket. If I had to guess on every shot it would not be consistent. And I'm not choosing "does this perfect alignment look right or does this one or this one?" There is no choice. There is one. And they do "look like" they are perfect. It's a parallax view. It is the CTE alignment that takes me to the shot line, the shot line doesn't take me to the CTE alignment as you seem to suggest.

OK, we’re still speaking different languages. Good luck with it.

pj
chgo

 

[canwin]

It's called stanglish.

 

[mohrt]

It's called stanglish.

lol. yah I don't speak pjango

 

[Dan White]

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.

 

[Dan White]

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.

Yes, pretty much everything you are saying here is true, except maybe the last paragraph. If the CTE claims were easy to prove someone would have done it 20 years ago.

But this discussion isn't whether CTE improves shotmaking substantially. It is about whether a 2x1 table is necessary and why. I started this thread because the First Commandment of CTE, if you will, is Thou Shalt Play On A 2x1 Table. Why? Odd after 20 years nobody seems to know. You would think that since this is the SOLE REASON CTE is supposed to work, we'd have a better handle on why. It is even stranger than that. I'm getting the idea from this thread that most of the CTE guys don't believe a 2x1 table is really necessary, except maybe for bank shots. Am I wrong?

 

[Dan White]

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.

Any chance we can get a live stream of you throwing balls out on the table and draining ridiculous banks? It would be convincing but as of yet the only documented case of this happening is from Kentucky state banks champion Stan Shuffett.

 

[Dan White]

wait, who is boogieman?

boogieman is a guy trying to learn CTE from Stan's book and has been contributing to this thread. He is a mid level player who probably would struggle with 2 and 3 rail banks. If he were to pocket the majority of those banks randomly using CTE then I would be impressed. I am not impressed when the KY state champion puts the balls on hole reinforcers and does it.

 

[Dan White]

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.

I will try to make time to try it using the new instructions, but to be honest, when I said I can't find the AL with one eye and the SL with the other and that is why I didn't try it, you said TBH it doesn't really matter. So I have to go back to that thread and make sure I understand what does matter.

 

[mohrt]

So are you now saying that a 2x1 surface IS required, or not?

I believe a 1x1 surface would work just fine with 4 pockets, one on each corner. So a 2x1 is just an extension of that. For instance, a z-bank on a 1x1 table is the same trajectory as a long rail bank on a 2x1. Same perception for the same shot. The important element is that the pockets lie at 90 degree angles from each other, forming perfect squares. These happen to be the shot lines that CTE perceptions solve. This is what Hal discovered.

 

[mohrt]

I will try to make time to try it using the new instructions, but to be honest, when I said I can't find the AL with one eye and the SL with the other and that is why I didn't try it, you said TBH it doesn't really matter. So I have to go back to that thread and make sure I understand what does matter.

I'll try to find it.

 

[Dan White]

I believe a 1x1 surface would work just fine with 4 pockets, one on each corner. So a 2x1 is just an extension of that. For instance, a z-bank on a 1x1 table is the same trajectory as a long rail bank on a 2x1. Same perception for the same shot. The important element is that the pockets lie at 90 degree angles from each other, forming perfect squares. These happen to be the shot lines that CTE perceptions solve. This is what Hal discovered.

So do you believe the 2x1 table is necessary or will the same shot work on a 1.88x1 table?

 

[mohrt]

I'm going to guess that not all shots will work on a 1.88 table. It would be an interesting experiment.