CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored

[Patrick Johnson]

The irony of what, you being wrong and thinking CTE is a fractional system for over 20 years.

You not being able to prove a single one of CTE's illogical claims for 20 years.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

If you are shooting a 30 inside (the shot I've been predominantly discussing thus far) and this is a right cut, the CB right edge is on OB center (AL) and the CB center is on OB left edge (SL). This is true for both left and right handed players. For the left handed player you'll have to turn your body a bit more to get out of the way of the cue when you bring it on the shot line. Your face should be angled slightly toward the pocket you are shooting into. The exact face angle will work itself out, just make sure your head is poked out far enough to see the AL, and such that you can also see the SL. Stan says "stand behind the AL such that you can see the SL". That doesn't mean stand directly behind the AL, but it means make sure your head is poked out there to it. You might start on the AL, then adjust to see both SL and AL if necessary. If you do that correctly, then eye dominance will also be good and face angle will be good.

And then how do I find the NISL to put the cue on?

 

[Dan White]

IF it were an incorrect claim then it would not necessarily be a deliberately false claim. Do you think that feel and CTE are the same when it comes to developing aiming ability in pool? What would you propose to test this hypothesis? Is it "fair" to the consumer? To charge for knowledge?

IF CTE were nothing more than feel-based aiming then no, it would not be "fair" to charge or teach it. Is that your contention?



Nor does it make it not so. Is measuring by feel likely to produce as much accuracy as measuring with a ruler?



ok. and is any of that material to the effectiveness of the system when used?


Glad that Hal Houle and Stan Shuffett have provided you with something to do. I am off to use CTE in a $200 a game ten ahead match. I am currently plus 6. Hoping that I can finish this today and regardless of where it goes I have to thank Stan for providing me with an objective method that is now even better than before. And the before version was pretty great.

After reading your last two posts I think you've lost sight of the subject matter and how science works. When people make certain claims the onus is on them to prove those claims. It is not on anybody else to disprove them and they are considered true if nobody does that.

I do think that the claims and instructions actually hinder people from learning. My guess is that people who follow the instructions to a tee every time and do not let the location of the pocket sway their set up with the cue will not be successful with CTE. If the instructions said to use the CTE instructions as a starting point and then use the pocket location to modify that set up (based on experience) then more would find success. The problem is CTE wouldn't really be necessary at that point because the important point is recognizing where the pocket is and how to get the cue on the shot line.

Nothing has ever been presented in 20 years of CTE discussion to show that the instructions put the cue on the shot line. If all you care about is that you can put the ball in the pocket then you are in the wrong discussion thread.

Any chance we will see a live stream of you making a high percentage of complicated banks using CTE anytime soon?

 

[cookie man]

After reading your last two posts I think you've lost sight of the subject matter and how science works. When people make certain claims the onus is on them to prove those claims. It is not on anybody else to disprove them and they are considered true if nobody does that.

I do think that the claims and instructions actually hinder people from learning. My guess is that people who follow the instructions to a tee every time and do not let the location of the pocket sway their set up with the cue will not be successful with CTE. If the instructions said to use the CTE instructions as a starting point and then use the pocket location to modify that set up (based on experience) then more would find success. The problem is CTE wouldn't really be necessary at that point because the important point is recognizing where the pocket is and how to get the cue on the shot line.

Nothing has ever been presented in 20 years of CTE discussion to show that the instructions put the cue on the shot line. If all you care about is that you can put the ball in the pocket then you are in the wrong discussion thread.

Any chance we will see a live stream of you making a high percentage of complicated banks using CTE anytime soon?

Doesn't science work both ways? You are making a lot of claims that you can't prove. All you have is wrong guesses as to how CTE is performed.

Everything about CTE is nicely presented and proved out in the CTE book as well as THE TRUTH SERIES. The fact that you can't follow along and understand is not on us. The info is there in front of your nose.

 

[Dan White]

Doesn't science work both ways? You are making a lot of claims that you can't prove. All you have is wrong guesses as to how CTE is performed.

Everything about CTE is nicely presented and proved out in the CTE book as well as THE TRUTH SERIES. The fact that you can't follow along and understand is not on us. The info is there in front of your nose.

Please list the claims that I am making that I cannot prove. Thanks.

 

[mohrt]

And then how do I find the NISL to put the cue on?

It's all detailed in my "A CTE shot for you to try" post, and the truth series on youtube has absolutely everything detailed. Step the CB, move/pivot your cue to the NISL, you can then switch your eye focus to the NISL.

 

[JB Cases]

After reading your last two posts I think you've lost sight of the subject matter and how science works. When people make certain claims the onus is on them to prove those claims. It is not on anybody else to disprove them and they are considered true if nobody does that.

Good thing CTE isn't a scientific endeavor then. Peer review in science is to confirm/criticize presented findings. Peer review in pool is when something is tried on the table.

I do think that the claims and instructions actually hinder people from learning. My guess is that people who follow the instructions to a tee every time and do not let the location of the pocket sway their set up with the cue will not be successful with CTE. If the instructions said to use the CTE instructions as a starting point and then use the pocket location to modify that set up (based on experience) then more would find success. The problem is CTE wouldn't really be necessary at that point because the important point is recognizing where the pocket is and how to get the cue on the shot line.

Well, that's like just your opinion. The proof is on the table. Your guess is exactly that, a guess. You want people to to use an objective method to then fidget around at the last step when they are addressing the ball? The pocket location is clear. All of the pockets on a 2x1 pool table are at the 90 degree intersections formed by the two squares that make up the perfect rectangle.

Nothing has ever been presented in 20 years of CTE discussion to show that the instructions put the cue on the shot line. If all you care about is that you can put the ball in the pocket then you are in the wrong discussion thread.

Really? So aiming correctly is not part of successful pocketing? CTE has not been in discussion for 20 years. But that fact aside, what is the test to find out of CTE directs a HUMAN BEING to the right shot line? $600 a game one pocket last night and CTE seemed to do a freaking great job of getting me on the shot line for the direct to pocket shots and one rail banks with laser-like precision. In one pocket the player often comes up against tough shots that MUST be made. Maybe my subconscious brain just decided that it was going to put me on the shot line consistently and CTE was just window dressing. OR - the focused, deliberate use of CTE's objective reference points is what put me on that line time after time.

Any chance we will see a live stream of you making a high percentage of complicated banks using CTE anytime soon?

Not for you. You have already stated above that NOTHING anyone has done in the past has proven that CTE works so why on earth should I think that it would make a difference to you if I, or anyone else, made such a video?

If I choose to do such a video then it will be because I feel like doing it for those who are interested in learning CTE. I have zero anticipation that such a video would matter to you nor would I particularly care whether it did or not.

Dan, frankly I am over you. I play pool in competition that matters. I use tools that make sense to me, CTE for aiming, spin induced throw for some position play, the 45 degree rule for center table position routes, double the distance for one rail kicks, caroms and safety shots. I have a decent toolbox and room for more good tools.

While you search for ways to discredit people like me are enjoying the benefits of objective aiming. When we want to proffer guesses I will go out on limb and say that you have likely never and likely will never experience the pure joy of coming with great play with significant money on the line. I get it that you are "bothered" but your (unfounded) criticism is inconsequential to the usage of CTE.

If Stan Shuffett, the accomplished bank pool champion, isn't enough of an expert to convince you when he says that he is banking better than any other time in his life due to the use of CTE aiming then nothing I do will be better than that.

I would however have a live streamed video call contest with you for $100 per bank shot to see which of us can do better. We each pick 25 bank shots in categories of one, two, three, four and five rails and put them in a box. We pick shots randomly and whichever of us completes the shot in the fewest attempts wins that shot. We continue until one of us has lost a thousand OR all the shots are completed and we tally the results.

Whenever you are ready to do this let me know and we can set it up. Won't "prove" anything either way on CTE but I am pretty sure that my use of CTE will beat your feel/shot picture method. And if you know some rudimentary CTE and actually apply it correctly then you will have more success than if you do the feel/shot picture method. Given your take on it though I highly doubt that you will trust the line CTE gives you and will attempt to fidget your way into the right shot line. I however will mentally and physically approach each shot the same way and apply center to edge aiming to every shot. THE ONLY EXCEPTION would be some bank shots where spin must be applied in which case I will use CTE to find the shot line and then DELIBERATELY adjust the aiming to account for the spin I need to use.

But you won't REALLY know what I am doing would you? So if you're willing to have a little contest let me know and we can discuss the results afterwards. That will be more fun than asking me to dance on command for you as if that would be in any way influential to your criticism of CTE and you can possibly make a little money. Or lose a little.

 

[JB Cases]

Please list the claims that I am making that I cannot prove. Thanks.

Please list the claims you have made that you have proven. Thanks.

 

[Low500]

Good thing CTE isn't a scientific endeavor then. Peer review in science is to confirm/criticize presented findings. Peer review in pool is when something is tried on the table.



Well, that's like just your opinion. The proof is on the table. Your guess is exactly that, a guess. You want people to to use an objective method to then fidget around at the last step when they are addressing the ball? The pocket location is clear. All of the pockets on a 2x1 pool table are at the 90 degree intersections formed by the two squares that make up the perfect rectangle.



Really? So aiming correctly is not part of successful pocketing? CTE has not been in discussion for 20 years. But that fact aside, what is the test to find out of CTE directs a HUMAN BEING to the right shot line? $600 a game one pocket last night and CTE seemed to do a freaking great job of getting me on the shot line for the direct to pocket shots and one rail banks with laser-like precision. In one pocket the player often comes up against tough shots that MUST be made. Maybe my subconscious brain just decided that it was going to put me on the shot line consistently and CTE was just window dressing. OR - the focused, deliberate use of CTE's objective reference points is what put me on that line time after time.



Not for you. You have already stated above that NOTHING anyone has done in the past has proven that CTE works so why on earth should I think that it would make a difference to you if I, or anyone else, made such a video?

If I choose to do such a video then it will be because I feel like doing it for those who are interested in learning CTE. I have zero anticipation that such a video would matter to you nor would I particularly care whether it did or not.

Dan, frankly I am over you. I play pool in competition that matters. I use tools that make sense to me, CTE for aiming, spin induced throw for some position play, the 45 degree rule for center table position routes, double the distance for one rail kicks, caroms and safety shots. I have a decent toolbox and room for more good tools.

While you search for ways to discredit people like me are enjoying the benefits of objective aiming. When we want to proffer guesses I will go out on limb and say that you have likely never and likely will never experience the pure joy of coming with great play with significant money on the line. I get it that you are "bothered" but your (unfounded) criticism is inconsequential to the usage of CTE.

If Stan Shuffett, the accomplished bank pool champion, isn't enough of an expert to convince you when he says that he is banking better than any other time in his life due to the use of CTE aiming then nothing I do will be better than that.

I would however have a live streamed video call contest with you for $100 per bank shot to see which of us can do better. We each pick 25 bank shots in categories of one, two, three, four and five rails and put them in a box. We pick shots randomly and whichever of us completes the shot in the fewest attempts wins that shot. We continue until one of us has lost a thousand OR all the shots are completed and we tally the results.

Whenever you are ready to do this let me know and we can set it up. Won't "prove" anything either way on CTE but I am pretty sure that my use of CTE will beat your feel/shot picture method. And if you know some rudimentary CTE and actually apply it correctly then you will have more success than if you do the feel/shot picture method. Given your take on it though I highly doubt that you will trust the line CTE gives you and will attempt to fidget your way into the right shot line. I however will mentally and physically approach each shot the same way and apply center to edge aiming to every shot. THE ONLY EXCEPTION would be some bank shots where spin must be applied in which case I will use CTE to find the shot line and then DELIBERATELY adjust the aiming to account for the spin I need to use.

But you won't REALLY know what I am doing would you? So if you're willing to have a little contest let me know and we can discuss the results afterwards. That will be more fun than asking me to dance on command for you as if that would be in any way influential to your criticism of CTE and you can possibly make a little money. Or lose a little.

John...John...John.
Get RID OF that bum. Put him out of your life.
You're expending too much mental energy, common sense, and wisdom for that guy.
He's never done anything significant in this game....ZERO.
All he can be counted on to do is bitch, bitch, bitch, gripe, complain, and whine. Just like some old woman at a broken down church picnic because "they didn't have any cole slaw". (and then play innocent with the "who me?" stuff.)
He's a born loser....you are not. Conversing (even on line) with idiots like him can rub off on you.
Let him die alone in his misery.
Your pool game, your business, and your life are SOOOO far above that bum.
The guys at the REAL pool shooting forum like what you do. Let "the White" become invisible.
Just sayin'....don't beat up on me for saying it.
Regards,
Lowenstein

 

[JB Cases]

"...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

Context matters to honest people. Your not honest which is WHY you quoted me OUT of context.

 

[JB Cases]

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

Clearly it IS NOT a method like every other. That much at least ought to be clear to you. However when your premise is wrong, as yours is, then your conclusions are likely to be wrong, as yours are.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CTE is another method like all the others - get over it.

Clearly it IS NOT a method like every other.

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

 

[Dan White]

Good thing CTE isn't a scientific endeavor then. Peer review in science is to confirm/criticize presented findings. Peer review in pool is when something is tried on the table.



Well, that's like just your opinion. The proof is on the table. Your guess is exactly that, a guess. You want people to to use an objective method to then fidget around at the last step when they are addressing the ball? The pocket location is clear. All of the pockets on a 2x1 pool table are at the 90 degree intersections formed by the two squares that make up the perfect rectangle.

That's your problem right there. You think if you can pocket balls using CTE then that's all that matters. I'm more interested in the unfounded claims made by Stan. Whether you can train your brain to use CTE successfully is a different topic. Either you don't understand the issue from a scientific viewpoint or you are intentionally deflecting the issue.

Really? So aiming correctly is not part of successful pocketing? CTE has not been in discussion for 20 years. But that fact aside, what is the test to find out of CTE directs a HUMAN BEING to the right shot line? $600 a game one pocket last night and CTE seemed to do a freaking great job of getting me on the shot line for the direct to pocket shots and one rail banks with laser-like precision. In one pocket the player often comes up against tough shots that MUST be made. Maybe my subconscious brain just decided that it was going to put me on the shot line consistently and CTE was just window dressing. OR - the focused, deliberate use of CTE's objective reference points is what put me on that line time after time.

Like I said, if you found a way to make CTE work for you then congratulations.

Not for you. You have already stated above that NOTHING anyone has done in the past has proven that CTE works so why on earth should I think that it would make a difference to you if I, or anyone else, made such a video?

So you made all these great bank shots using CTE and you could do it on a live stream but you just don't want to. OK.

If I choose to do such a video then it will be because I feel like doing it for those who are interested in learning CTE. I have zero anticipation that such a video would matter to you nor would I particularly care whether it did or not.

I said I would be impressed if you could do it. At least it would prove there is something to what you are saying. As it is all we have from you is a loss to Lou.

Dan, frankly I am over you. I play pool in competition that matters. I use tools that make sense to me, CTE for aiming, spin induced throw for some position play, the 45 degree rule for center table position routes, double the distance for one rail kicks, caroms and safety shots. I have a decent toolbox and room for more good tools.

While you search for ways to discredit people like me are enjoying the benefits of objective aiming. When we want to proffer guesses I will go out on limb and say that you have likely never and likely will never experience the pure joy of coming with great play with significant money on the line. I get it that you are "bothered" but your (unfounded) criticism is inconsequential to the usage of CTE.

If Stan Shuffett, the accomplished bank pool champion, isn't enough of an expert to convince you when he says that he is banking better than any other time in his life due to the use of CTE aiming then nothing I do will be better than that

This conversation is getting stale. All I was interested in is whether a 2x1 surface really matters. I gather from both you and mohrt that it probably does not. Frankly, the diagram I provided in this thread shows the silliness of that claim. Saying 2x1 like it's the First Commandment over and over gives the impression that it is some kind of explanation or validation of why CTE is supposed to work.

.

I would however have a live streamed video call contest with you for $100 per bank shot to see which of us can do better. We each pick 25 bank shots in categories of one, two, three, four and five rails and put them in a box. We pick shots randomly and whichever of us completes the shot in the fewest attempts wins that shot. We continue until one of us has lost a thousand OR all the shots are completed and we tally the results.

Whenever you are ready to do this let me know and we can set it up. Won't "prove" anything either way on CTE but I am pretty sure that my use of CTE will beat your feel/shot picture method. And if you know some rudimentary CTE and actually apply it correctly then you will have more success than if you do the feel/shot picture method. Given your take on it though I highly doubt that you will trust the line CTE gives you and will attempt to fidget your way into the right shot line. I however will mentally and physically approach each shot the same way and apply center to edge aiming to every shot. THE ONLY EXCEPTION would be some bank shots where spin must be applied in which case I will use CTE to find the shot line and then DELIBERATELY adjust the aiming to account for the spin I need to use.

But you won't REALLY know what I am doing would you? So if you're willing to have a little contest let me know and we can discuss the results afterwards. That will be more fun than asking me to dance on command for you as if that would be in any way influential to your criticism of CTE and you can possibly make a little money. Or lose a little.

You claim you bank unbelievably using CTE and I challenge you to prove it with a live stream. Show that you weren't just having a good night (science, you know). Instead I get chest beating and intimidation. Why don't we just cut to the quick and measure penis lengths, lol?

If you beat me in banks all it would show is you are better at banks than I am. I can bank "OK" for a straight pool player. I've banked several in a row on occasion, and there's that video I did with the 5 consecutive banks I did a while back. That's about it. I don't think I have ever attempted a two rail bank much less three rail in any competition ever. I believe banking is an integral part of 1p, correct? Frankly, it would be embarrassing if you didn't wipe me up with a banking competition.

 

[Dan White]

John...John...John.
Get RID OF that bum. Put him out of your life.
You're expending too much mental energy, common sense, and wisdom for that guy.
He's never done anything significant in this game....ZERO.
All he can be counted on to do is bitch, bitch, bitch, gripe, complain, and whine. Just like some old woman at a broken down church picnic because "they didn't have any cole slaw". (and then play innocent with the "who me?" stuff.)
He's a born loser....you are not. Conversing (even on line) with idiots like him can rub off on you.
Let him die alone in his misery.
Your pool game, your business, and your life are SOOOO far above that bum.
The guys at the REAL pool shooting forum like what you do. Let "the White" become invisible.
Just sayin'....don't beat up on me for saying it.
Regards,
Lowenstein

Maybe you are right and I am a bum, but at least I back my words up with my real name, which is more than can be said for you, Mr. Joe the harmonica man.

 

[cookie man]

Please list the claims that I am making that I cannot prove. Thanks.

Just look in the previous post of yours i quoted.

 

[cookie man]

All I was interested in is whether a 2x1 surface really matters. I gather from both you and mohrt that it probably does not. Frankly, the diagram I provided in this thread shows the silliness of that claim. Saying 2x1 like it's the First Commandment over and over gives the impression that it is some kind of explanation or validation of why CTE is supposed to work.

Another claim that you can't prove. A 2x1 surface most definitely matters when using CTE in it's entirety.

 

[JB Cases]

That's your problem right there. You think if you can pocket balls using CTE then that's all that matters. I'm more interested in the unfounded claims made by Stan. Whether you can train your brain to use CTE successfully is a different topic. Either you don't understand the issue from a scientific viewpoint or you are intentionally deflecting the issue.

I understand you attempting to frame CTE in a scientific narrative when it is completely unnecessary to do so.

Like I said, if you found a way to make CTE work for you then congratulations.

I found that CTE works. Thanks.

So you made all these great bank shots using CTE and you could do it on a live stream but you just don't want to. OK.

I don't want to FOR YOU. I probably will do some video for others and if you happen to see it then you can make whatever comment you want.

I said I would be impressed if you could do it. At least it would prove there is something to what you are saying. As it is all we have from you is a loss to Lou.

And does that 9-6 set loss prove anything to you about CTE? There is no shot that I have ever made on any video that proves to you that CTE works or not. Even I had won that set there is a 100% certainty that you would have the EXACT same attitude towards CTE that you currently have. Because, you know, science right?

This conversation is getting stale. All I was interested in is whether a 2x1 surface really matters. I gather from both you and mohrt that it probably does not. Frankly, the diagram I provided in this thread shows the silliness of that claim. Saying 2x1 like it's the First Commandment over and over gives the impression that it is some kind of explanation or validation of why CTE is supposed to work.

Again with the religious references? So your issue is that CTE works on MORE than just 2x1 playing fields. A surface, since you are wanting exactitude, has nothing to do with the constraining boundaries.

You claim you bank unbelievably using CTE and I challenge you to prove it with a live stream. Show that you weren't just having a good night (science, you know). Instead I get chest beating and intimidation. Why don't we just cut to the quick and measure penis lengths, lol?

No, I did not say that I bank unbelievably. I said that I have made ridiculous banks using CTE. What sort of banking results could I show you that would matter? Why wouldn't I just be having a "good day" while making the video? You bleat about "science" and then ask me to perform for you on command when you have zero intention of attributing anything that I show to you as positive proof that CTE works as described. You literally want me to waste my time doing unscientific actions that you don't value.

Intimidation? Do you feel intimidated because I said I am willing to bet on myself in a banking competition.

If you beat me in banks all it would show is you are better at banks than I am. I can bank "OK" for a straight pool player. I've banked several in a row on occasion, and there's that video I did with the 5 consecutive banks I did a while back. That's about it. I don't think I have ever attempted a two rail bank much less three rail in any competition ever. I believe banking is an integral part of 1p, correct? Frankly, it would be embarrassing if you didn't wipe me up with a banking competition.

Oh sorry, I didn't know you were so inexperienced in pool. Well, you're right then I guess it's likely that you wouldn't have any chance since you don't have a good aiming system to use and don't even have a library of "shot pictures" to use for your subconscious magic brain to put you on the right line.

What is your high run in 14.1? I believe in CTE so much that I think I could hang with you there as well. Let's do a side by competition where we set up break shots and then see how far we get. The say ten attempts and the total of all our respective attempts determines the winner.

I haven't played straight pool in many years. So your shot picture library should easily beat my CTE-aiming.

 

[JB Cases]

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

Nah the "landmarks" (new one from you attempting to diminsh) are multiple objective reference points that tie into a specific way to align to the shot that produces an accurate shot line with no imagination needed.

As for calling yourself a "realist" - no you aren't.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...the "landmarks" (new one from you attempting to diminsh) are multiple objective reference points that tie into a specific way to align to the shot

A "specific way" that nobody can describe sensibly.

pj
chgo

 

[straightline]

A "specific way" that nobody can describe sensibly.

pj
chgo

I think I got it. Per the 2 to 1 ratio, all the lines converge center pocket unless they don't. Then you use a different setting.