Or perhaps the issue is that you don't have the capacity to understand the instructions. People have mental blocks in various ways. I would suggest that you stick with what you can understand and enjoy the game as much as you can.
CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored
- Thread starter Dan White
- Start date
No one who teaches or uses CTE has that said that all lines converge at center pocket. What they have said is that for just about all possible shots that go directly to a pocket there is going to be a CTE solution that sends the object ball to a pocket. For banks there is a CTE solution for just about every type of bank shot.
We know that this works on a 2x1 table. I personally know that it works for a lot of shot on a table that is not 2x1 because I had some toy tables that were not exactly perfect rectangles. I don't know that CTE would work on all of the possible shots on a non 2x1 playing field.
Regarding the "settings".....yep, that is the essence of an objective system - it has settings that work for the task in front of the user. Knowing the system well means that it is highly likely that the user can choose the correct setting for each task that the system works for.
Last edited:
You can't really prove much of anything 100% but you can come up with possible explanations (hypotheses) that can be tested. Over time these ideas become pretty convincing to the point where they are called Laws, like the law of gravity, or Newton's laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics.
In this fun example of discovery the topic is whether the claim that CTE's mysterious phenomenon only works on a 2x1 table as advertised is true. The claim is made and then people might look for evidence of the claim, which is what I am doing here (and pocketing balls has nothing to do with it). Before anyone shouts "Proof!" there must be an investigation and data gathering. I posed a simple question and presented a diagram of a 2x1 table and also a 1.88x1 table with 6 inches chopped off. So you believe the shot will go in on the 2x1 table but the same shot will not go in on the 1.88x1 or the 1x1 table? Or, are you saying something else?
I don't understand. Are you saying the only thing that matters is that there is a pocket at the corner of two 90 degree lines and the surface does not have to be 2x1?
To repeat, I'm taking Stan's assertion that this only happens on a 2x1 surface seriously. Surely, if it is true we should be able to figure out why that is. Unfortunately, all we have is Hal's poetic creative writing on how diamonds form 15 and 30 and 45 degree angles (which actually they do not) and they add up to 90 degrees on a 2x1 surface. Stan even has it on the COVER of his new book. It is that important to the functioning of CTE.
OK, so what? WHY does this make CTE fool the eye into different orientations on the table? There doesn't seem to be any connection between the two ideas.
Oh, and my high run is 627 but I didn't record it but luckily you can trust me!
The shots will go into the upper corner pockets. One straight in and the by way of a bank. The balls cannot be made with real CTE in the bottom pockets, they would come up approximately a diamond shy of the pockets. I did the test using CTE and got the results, can you do the test? Of course you can't or you wouldn't have asked the question. So the correct answer is that CTE will work on an altered table but not in it's entirety
Sorry, lol, but I just can't feel insulted by anyone who goes by Cookie Man.
Lou Figueroa
Seriously? Of course CTE will work where there are 90 degree corners with the ONLY caveat being that I don't know at what distance from the pocket MIGHT not have a CTE solution. However since any 90 degree angle can be a PART of a 2x1 playing field then it stands to reason that SINCE CTE does work on a 2x1 playing field then it works for any 90 degree intersection. But since we don't play competitive pool on anything but 2x1 rectangles the question of whether it works in part or in full on any other ratio is actually irrelevant.
Sure you are. Ok take it seriously. If you have time to spend on irrelevant things then spend it as you wish to.
Luckily for players everywhere then that competitive pool is played on perfect rectangles with pockets at the 90 degree intersections of the perfect squares. Since you don't think that CTE works why should it matter to you whether it works on oval tables or not?
What different orientations? What fooling of the eye is there? Everything you need to master CTE is available to you. Then you will be in a GREAT position to pursue your questions.
Then, unfortunately for you, you have ZERO opportunity to see your run be certified by any accepted record-keeping body. John Schmidt, on the other hand, had his world record run verified by the Billiard Congress of America. And he said that CTE works, which is unverified by the BCA. However people using CTE do hold many titles for their performance on 2x1 tables, amateur and professional.
Tons of proof. Heaps. Immense amounts.
CTE works so well that AZB had to create a forum dedicated just to aiming to contain the conversations.
It's you. You are the one with the inability to understand and the inability to learn. I am pretty sure that I know just about everything you know about how to play pool and you don't know everything I know. I can fidget aim too if I ever found a situation where fidgeting to aim were required. You, on the other hand cannot use CTE.
If I gave you a perception/visual solution you wouldn't know what to do. If I gave the same to Cookie, or Mohrt, or any number of CTE users they would know EXACTLY how to aim the shot successfully. I could prove this easily but you will never participate in any real world contest that would show your ignorance.
Not an insult, just truth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TOO EASY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yea let's take the word of the "Lou-ser" over the Cookieman. Lou provides no information at all. At least i shot the shots and reported the results. At least i know how to properly shoot the shots using CTE which you obviously don't.
This is too easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are so unbelievably disingenuous.
CTE doesn't work ONLY because of the size of the playing field is 2x1. However it should be stupidly obvious to you that it would work exactly the same on your two example shots to the same corner even if you cut off an unused part of the table.
In fact, had you bothered to REALLY LISTEN then you would have already known that the answer you (insincerely) claim to seek was already given to you in the very video that you chose to use in the first post.
Right here:
I think you need to group similar shots to claim a 2-1 convergence. A single, direct to pocket shot has no such relationship. I see that the table shape is more relevant to banks but banks bring the cinch factor into dominance. IOW if you don't manufacture a bank, it don't go.
Yes but the system settings resolve at 2 parallel lines and estimation in 15 degree increments and further must be calibrated on a shot specific basis. Same ole spectre of over complexity.
John...remember to whom you are posting and how the following applies to him:
Ignorance can be educated, Crazy can be medicated, but Stupid just can't be fixed.
Hey cookieman, you wanta' borrow my attachment for use on dolts like that guy? Feel free to do so.
Regards,
"The Low"
An aiming system that “was never supposed to be”.
And you want to be taken seriously...
pj
chgo