But then again, you have no idea what CTE even is or how to do it.
CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored
- Thread starter Dan White
- Start date
Stan has made a similar statement in the past, even if he didn't realize what he was saying, though I believe he did. He said,
"Real aiming is a mix of conscious and subconscious behavior."
This is the reality of everything we do that involves mind-body preformances, such as riding a bike or juggling or typing or playing a musical instrument, or....playing pool. Stan summed it up in one precise statement, which explains why 10 minutes, or even 10 hours, is not enough time to become proficient with aiming. Simply put, aiming involves experience. You have to actually know what you're looking at in order to know whether or not it's correct.
It's a matter of training the brain (through practice and repetition), wiring together the neuro network needed at the subconscious level so that conscious awareness has a good parter to dance with. And that's what it's like, a dance between the conscious and subconscious processes.
Think of the old saying, "You don't know what you don't know." If conscious input/thought has a dance partner that doesn't know any of the dance steps, there will be a lot of stumbling and stepping on toes. The resulting dance will be guesswork. But, with a little training, the conscious mind can teach/program its subconscious parter, and then the dance becomes quite natural and easy.
Last edited:
I think Stan was referring more to committing the CTE procedure to the subconscious level rather than actually aiming.
It seems like you don't understand the issue. Try rereading my last post above. Why is there no CTE solution for any shot 2.5 diamonds away from a corner pocket?
There is definitely a CTE solution for the shot on a regulation table.
So if a dance instructor choreographed a dance for these two dancers using every inch on a 20x40 dance floor. And they practiced and got the dance perfect. But then at the big competition someone cut off 5 feet from one side of the dance floor, making it 15x40, what would happen. Could they do the dance to perfection just as they had practiced it.
Subjectivity and objectivity exist on a spectrum.
Some aiming methods, "just see it" for example, are on the very subjective end of that spectrum. Others, CTE for example, are on the very objective end of that spectrum.
Your fidget method is towards the subjective end.
Ghost ball, when an actual ball or a template is used, becomes way more objective. However when using it without an actual ball or template it is quite subjective.
90/90 is towards the objective end of the spectrum. So is the SEE system and Poolology.
All aiming systems exist on this spectrum. None are 100% objective but some are pretty close to 100% in the usage and as such deservedly have the label of objective when describing the practical benefits of using them.
Again, you're wrong.
As I have said a zillion times the power of cte and other good objective aiming methods is that one learns the "keys" for each type of shot. Keys is my term because that's how it feels.
So when I look at a shot and I say this is 90/90 half ball pivot then anyone who is proficient with the 90/90 system can do the steps and land on the shot line even if they have no prior experience with that particular shot.
And, let's say I come up against a shot where I have no prior experience, in that case I would cycle through the keys and pick one that is likely to work. If there are 3, such as in 90/90 and one of them is definitely the answer and one of them clearly is not then I have a 50% chance of getting to the actual shot line. With experience that chance is likely much higher than 50% because I will likely be able to eliminate two of the three choices. If I were using CTE then my keys are even more accurate than 90/90 and so my likelihood of getting to the actual shot line are even higher.
Absolutely not, at least not without reworking some of the choreography first. Lol
Again, you don't know what you're saying.
In other words, the "power" of every aiming method. The only real difference with CTE is that it's overcomplicated, and judging by the reluctance of its users here to even consider the truth, they need that to hide it from themselves.
pj
chgo
OK. Let's start over. In the drawing with the yellow and red ball you confirm that both shots would go no matter whether the table is 2x1 or not, correct? That means the lower long rail does not matter. Now let's say you want to hit those same two balls in the lower right corner that has been moved up 6 inches. Now we can ignore the upper long rail and just play those two balls in the lower pocket and just forget that it has been moved up. Why does it matter? Instead of a yellow ball shot that is 3 diamonds away now it is 2.5 diamonds, and similarly for the red which is now 1.5 diamonds instead of 2. Why is this shot any different from the first on in the upper right corner? Just a different CTE perception, no?
You've just about backpedaled right out of the topic.
lol
I think that puts your St. Vitus Dance method off the subjective end of the scale.
pj
chgo
I think what JB means by objective is that you aim by picking out the same "landmarks" on the balls each time, so that makes it objective compared to HAMB where your brain doesn't need all that and just knows the shot will work. IMO, that makes it more complicated right off the bat. The point of contention, of course, is that JB doesn't appreciate the power of the subconscious mind and how it can alter perceptions. He does not think it is necessary to know where the pocket is in order for the system to work.
You were talking about becoming a Zen Bank Master using CTE the other day
so I set up a bank shot to try. It is where the ob is about one diamond away from the corner pocket (maybe a tad more) and the cb is straight on line with it into the corner pocket. Stan set this shot up in one of his videos to illustrate how he used to call this a 30 inside incorrectly when it is a 15 inside (a straight in shot, IOW). Then he said with a 30 it would bank three rails into the side.So I set this shot up and hit basically a half ball hit. It banked one rail, then took an incredibly shallow bank off the second rail, came off rail three and dead center into the side pocket! I let out a belly laugh it was so funny! Of course reality set in when I moved the ball forward or back a little and the shot didn't work anymore.
What if they added 5 feet to one side, Could they still do it?
Nope I never said anything of the sort. I said that I have made great banks using cte.You were talking about becoming a Zen Bank Master using CTE the other day
So I set this shot up and hit basically a half ball hit. It banked one rail, then took an incredibly shallow bank off the second rail, came off rail three and dead center into the side pocket! I let out a belly laugh it was so funny! Of course reality set in when I moved the ball forward or back a little and the shot didn't work anymore.
Of course your shot didn't work anymore if it was a half ball hit and you tried to aim it as a half ball hit from a different position. Not sure what you think that this proves.
Stan wasn't describing a half ball hit. He was using cte to get to a shot line. What the actual fractional hit was from the shooter's perspective could be anything. In cte we don't use fractional overlap shot lines.
Maybe if you learned cte then you would learn how to make it three rails even when the object ball is moved to a different position.
Lol, and you can't appreciate the power of the conscious mind so you attribute results you can't achieve to the subconscious.
Even in your "curtain" video you consciously found an objective aim point to use when making the shot.
Jeez, Francis, lighten up a little. Did you see the smiley face?
You are such a wet blanket sometimes. OK, here we go. I said I hit "BASICALLY a half ball hit." The reason I said "basically" is that that is what the 30 degree perception is. Stan very quietly retired the whole idea of aiming center to edge for everything but the 30 degree perception and also eliminated both the manual pivot and the visual sweep in favor of a turning of the head toward the pocket. In the video where Stan shows a 15 degree perception he gets to the SL and says you can aim center to edge but it doesn't have to actually be the edge of the object ball. It can be the edge right here at the A line (paraphrasing). So here I am aligning a shot for fun and choosing to angle my face to the right. I lined up the SL and AL for a 30 degree perception while angling my face to the right. Maybe that was right maybe not, but the shot went right in so I figure I got it right. That or what is BASICALLY a half ball hit happens to go from that position where Stan placed the ob.
Sheesh, have to explain everything.
I have spent a lot of time working on my cue delivery over the years and one thing I noticed is that there are variables that seem important but really are not. You can work on these non critical things hoping they will help you achieve a great stroke, but over time you begin to see what matters and what doesn't. That's what I observe with CTE. Over time the instructions have changed dramatically to the point now where you don't even aim center to edge (that's the name of the system, right?) on three out of the four shots. You don't pivot the cue, you don't sweep your vision in from the side you just turn your head to the side a little (how much? doesn't seem to matter). What it all boils down to is that none of that matters. What does matter is that you are at the table trying to pocket balls. Your brain knows this and over time learns what successful shots look like. My best guess on CTE, since we have such little observational data, is that for SOME people their subconscious is able to tweak or alter the perception's alignment until the shot goes in. The player makes it happen DESPITE the instructions, not because of them.
Regarding the bold above, the difference between us is that if we move the object ball a little I know that that objective reference point will no longer work while you think that by doing the exact same thing and calling it a professional aiming system that that will make it work.
While we are on the subject of "objective" systems: How can you call the 45 degree perception objective? Stan says the SL is something like 11/32nds off the edge of the object ball. He recommends that you place a piece of paper next to the ob with a line at 11/32nds until you get a FEEL for where that is. Seriously? For that matter, even on the 15 degree perception aren't you supposed to aim a 1/16th away from the C position while also aligning the edge of the cb to the A position? Hardly objective. In theory, maybe, but not in practice.
Again you will never really get it. Innovation in the application of how it should be.
I played one pocket on a tight table today. One that takes nothing that touches the rail. With the latest innovation in application I was making many shots that I had avoided previously on that table. Being scared of the table had affected my stroke.
But in the past couple weeks I have gotten stronger with the new information and my stroke has indeed straightened considerably.
Of course that is anecdotal and you don't believe me.
One thing that ought to be clear however is that if something works in one way then it works another way. Right now you have "subconscious" adjustment while Stan has added more refinement.
What Hal taught me worked really well. What Stan teaches works extremely well.