CTE automatically corrects stroke issues

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Anyways, I will mess with CTE Pro 1 more in the future and see if it can (over a sustained period of time) solve some of my problem shots that I miss the same exact way almost every time then report back on the findings.
I think all aiming really boils down to being consistent and allowing your sub conscious to learn the shots. I spoke to Gene as well about his system and I guess it works but now years later I do things totally opposite from what Gene teaches and I pocket balls nicely.

Poolology does work and is intended to speed the shot recognition process until you no longer need it. It is described mathematically and the geometry makes sense.

You can make all the diagrams you want for CTE but the idea of even mentioning projections into lower dimensions should tell you something. CTE states that the method will tell you the shot line much as Poolology does. The reason CTE supposedly can do this is that the table has a 2:1 shape. It is a smoke and mirrors explanation originated by a carnival barker type guy (nice as he was) that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The more you look into CTE the more apparent it is that the instructions get you in the vicinity of the pocket and the player does the rest of the work to figure out how to pocket it. That is why I've maintained that those who follow the CTE instructions precisely will have no success on shots that don't naturally go anyway.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think all aiming really boils down to being consistent and allowing your sub conscious to learn the shots. I spoke to Gene as well about his system and I guess it works but now years later I do things totally opposite from what Gene teaches and I pocket balls nicely.

Poolology does work and is intended to speed the shot recognition process until you no longer need it. It is described mathematically and the geometry makes sense.

You can make all the diagrams you want for CTE but the idea of even mentioning projections into lower dimensions should tell you something. CTE states that the method will tell you the shot line much as Poolology does. The reason CTE supposedly can do this is that the table has a 2:1 shape. It is a smoke and mirrors explanation originated by a carnival barker type guy (nice as he was) that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The more you look into CTE the more apparent it is that the instructions get you in the vicinity of the pocket and the player does the rest of the work to figure out how to pocket it. That is why I've maintained that those who follow the CTE instructions precisely will have no success on shots that don't naturally go anyway.
Yet thousands still use it. Including at least 4 state champions that I know of, might be more.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yet thousands still use it. Including at least 4 state champions that I know of, might be more.
lol. Thousands use an aiming method that almost always starts out with, "The way I use CTE is ..." followed by stuff that has nothing to do with CTE.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
lol. Thousands use an aiming method that almost always starts out with, "The way I use CTE is ..." followed by stuff that has nothing to do with CTE.
Whatever. The important part for lurkers to know is that you know absolutely nothing about CTE. You just hold a grudge. Very sad.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
lol. Thousands use an aiming method that almost always starts out with, "The way I use CTE is ..." followed by stuff that has nothing to do with CTE.
This statement you make was partially true in the past but now that the complete CTE is out in the book the vast majority of CTE users are all on the same page.

It’s really a shame though that many people understood and used various aiming systems put out by Hal in the past but you just couldn’t quite grasp them. So now you just waste your time on Az talking about things you never could understand
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This statement you make was partially true in the past but now that the complete CTE is out in the book the vast majority of CTE users are all on the same page.

It’s really a shame though that many people understood and used various aiming systems put out by Hal in the past but you just couldn’t quite grasp them. So now you just waste your time on Az talking about things you never could understand
You can't defend Stan's silliness so you attack me. OK. Meanwhile I'm being cordial to you. I just said I didn't think you are an idiot despite the things you say.

You say the vast majority now all use CTE the same way. I'll believe it when I see it. The three top proponents of CTE are you, mohrt and JB. You use CTE differently than morht and JB still says he still isn't doing it quite right. He's just a cheerleader.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You can't defend Stan's silliness so you attack me. OK. Meanwhile I'm being cordial to you. I just said I didn't think you are an idiot despite the things you say.

You say the vast majority now all use CTE the same way. I'll believe it when I see it. The three top proponents of CTE are you, mohrt and JB. You use CTE differently than morht and JB still says he still isn't doing it quite right. He's just a cheerleader.
Well you won’t see it cause you never go out of the house and play lol.
You also have no idea if I use it differently than morht and jb and even if I did what does that really matter.

Again why do you even care? Is it because we can do it and you can’t.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
lol. Thousands use an aiming method that almost always starts out with, "The way I use CTE is ..." followed by stuff that has nothing to do with CTE.
Do you have any statements from these "thousands" so we can discuss exactly what was said? I would like to see what you say you have seen.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well you won’t see it cause you never go out of the house and play lol.
You also have no idea if I use it differently than morht and jb and even if I did what does that really matter.

Again why do you even care? Is it because we can do it and you can’t.
Well I do know that you look at ob last and mohrt looks at cb last. So after acquiring the NISL it doesn't seem to matter what you fix your eyes on while shooting. I wonder what other modifications to CTE can be done without affecting the outcome.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I think all aiming really boils down to being consistent and allowing your sub conscious to learn the shots. I spoke to Gene as well about his system and I guess it works but now years later I do things totally opposite from what Gene teaches and I pocket balls nicely.

Poolology does work and is intended to speed the shot recognition process until you no longer need it. It is described mathematically and the geometry makes sense.

You can make all the diagrams you want for CTE but the idea of even mentioning projections into lower dimensions should tell you something. CTE states that the method will tell you the shot line much as Poolology does. The reason CTE supposedly can do this is that the table has a 2:1 shape. It is a smoke and mirrors explanation originated by a carnival barker type guy (nice as he was) that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The more you look into CTE the more apparent it is that the instructions get you in the vicinity of the pocket and the player does the rest of the work to figure out how to pocket it. That is why I've maintained that those who follow the CTE instructions precisely will have no success on shots that don't naturally go anyway.
What does "don't naturally go anyway" mean? CTE doesn't state anything. The teachers of CTE say that the use of CTE will lead you to the shot line. Colloquially the statement CTE gives you the shot line means IF you follow the CTE method correctly then it leads the shooter to the shot line is 100% true in my experience. How do I know? Well, I haven't yet found a shot that goes directly to a pocket for which there is not a CTE perception solution that provides the shot line. But what happens when you miss? It means that the shooter either didn't apply the method correctly or the shooter made a mistake with their stroke. But the thing is with CTE when the stroke was straight but the shot is missed then it tends to miss the same way every time. Compared to trial and error and ghost ball where the misses tend to be NOT CONSISTENT.

So with CTE, properly applied at all steps, results in the shooter being on the shot line. See, your characterization of Hal or Stan as a "carnival barker type of guy" is EXACTLY the type of insult that detracts from any serious study of the mechanics. When you say "the player does the rest of the work to figure it out" how can you prove it? You can't. When CTE users say, this is step one done CONSCIOUSLY, this is step two done CONSCIOUSLY, this is step 3 done CONSCIOUSLY, and after step 3 the player is addressing the cueball at the correct shot line then what "work" did the shooter do?

I totally disagree that CTE is for training the subconscious. I think it is like using a ruler instead of trying to judge distance by feel. I think when it it comes to pool aiming having a tool like cte which is objectively applied throughout the process then aiming becomes a reliably precise activity.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Do you have any statements from these "thousands" so we can discuss exactly what was said? I would like to see what you say you have seen.
You, morht and cookie all do some things differently, for one. I can't quote person by person over the years but when some CTE users have been pressed on what they do it ends up in "this is how I do it." Just because I can't cite all the names doesn't mean the recollection is wrong. Seeing the main three proponents do it all differently should be enough evidence.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Well I do know that you look at ob last and mohrt looks at cb last. So after acquiring the NISL it doesn't seem to matter what you fix your eyes on while shooting. I wonder what other modifications to CTE can be done without affecting the outcome.
Certainly, you have seen the demonstrations where people get into shooting position and then turn their head and then they make the shot without looking at either ball.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
You, morht and cookie all do some things differently, for one. I can't quote person by person over the years but when some CTE users have been pressed on what they do it ends up in "this is how I do it." Just because I can't cite all the names doesn't mean the recollection is wrong. Seeing the main three proponents do it all differently should be enough evidence.
Well, give us examples of statements from all three of us so that we can compare them to the known CTE steps. I mean we are three CTE users known to you and still quite a long way from "thousands" but we can certainly start with statements we have made over the years.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well I do know that you look at ob last and mohrt looks at cb last. So after acquiring the NISL it doesn't seem to matter what you fix your eyes on while shooting. I wonder what other modifications to CTE can be done without affecting the outcome.
I can be effective looking at the cb last, it’s just not my preference. I do that in one of my practice routines. Got anything else?
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You, morht and cookie all do some things differently, for one. I can't quote person by person over the years but when some CTE users have been pressed on what they do it ends up in "this is how I do it." Just because I can't cite all the names doesn't mean the recollection is wrong. Seeing the main three proponents do it all differently should be enough evidence.
And it’s no doubt that through the years we have done some things differently. We all started with a half ball pivot, something you had no interest in. But now the book is out and we should be doing it pretty much the same if we choose. I stick to what’s taught in the book. Morht was trying to teach in a thread on here from the book. You still got nothing.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What does "don't naturally go anyway" mean? CTE doesn't state anything. The teachers of CTE say that the use of CTE will lead you to the shot line. Colloquially the statement CTE gives you the shot line means IF you follow the CTE method correctly then it leads the shooter to the shot line is 100% true in my experience. How do I know? Well, I haven't yet found a shot that goes directly to a pocket for which there is not a CTE perception solution that provides the shot line. But what happens when you miss? It means that the shooter either didn't apply the method correctly or the shooter made a mistake with their stroke. But the thing is with CTE when the stroke was straight but the shot is missed then it tends to miss the same way every time. Compared to trial and error and ghost ball where the misses tend to be NOT CONSISTENT.

So with CTE, properly applied at all steps, results in the shooter being on the shot line. See, your characterization of Hal or Stan as a "carnival barker type of guy" is EXACTLY the type of insult that detracts from any serious study of the mechanics. When you say "the player does the rest of the work to figure it out" how can you prove it? You can't. When CTE users say, this is step one done CONSCIOUSLY, this is step two done CONSCIOUSLY, this is step 3 done CONSCIOUSLY, and after step 3 the player is addressing the cueball at the correct shot line then what "work" did the shooter do?

I totally disagree that CTE is for training the subconscious. I think it is like using a ruler instead of trying to judge distance by feel. I think when it it comes to pool aiming having a tool like cte which is objectively applied throughout the process then aiming becomes a reliably precise activity.
Let's get one minor item out of the way. Hal was a nice guy but if we're being honest he was a promoter with a Harold Hill rap about the angles on the table. I don't have a copy of it but you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's been posted before. That is not an insult it is a fair interpretation.

Instead of replying line by line let's take an example of the problem by setting up a shot. Set up a straight in shot with the ob on the foot spot and the cb a diamond and a half away so that the two balls are lined up straight in to center corner pocket. This shot can be made using CTE with a 15 degree, or "A" perception, and an inside manual pivot. This puts the cue straight in line with the two balls and the shot line provided your bridge hand is in the right place for the pivot. Shoot the shot to confirm center pocket. Now replace the balls to the same position but now move the cb to the right about an inch so the two balls are now lined up to the left point. This is still a 15 degree perception with an inside pivot, right? When I shoot this shot the ob hits the left point because the 15 degree perception with an inside pivot "naturally" gives you a straight shot. When you shoot it the ob goes center pocket again. Why?
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Certainly, you have seen the demonstrations where people get into shooting position and then turn their head and then they make the shot without looking at either ball.
Of course. The point is that you do some things differently and those differences don't seem to matter. Many of us argue the reason for that is that the only thing that does matter is your recognition of the shot line gained from experience, not from a system that is supposed to tell you where the shot line is.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I don't have a bone to pick in this argument. However, as a college graduate with BSC and MSC in Computer Science and minor in math I find it very hard to believe that if its possible it cannot be diagrammed. If its possible to diagram something in 4 or more dimensions (and it is) and its possible to diagram virtually every classical physics problem, and its possible to diagram in the projection of 3 dimensional objects on a 2 dimensional screen (which is how objects are rendered in a computer, and I dont just mean do it, I mean diagram to explain how it works), then it should be possible to diagram something as simple as finding a line from one point to another point in space..
Now, lets say for the sake of argument that it is impossible to diagram, then a rigorous mathamatical proof should still be possible, and lets further say for whatever reason it cannot be proven but is still possible, in that case the lines, perspectives (or whatever stan uses) should at least be solvable mathematically on paper. And no, you shouldn't have to buy a 500 page book to see a diagram/proof/solution, they should fit on one or 2 pages of notebook paper.
If this diagram/proof/solution exists, releasing and explaining it in a video I think would be more helpful (and would help sell more books than not releasing it) than all of Stan's videos combined which I have watched and can honestly say I still don't understand the system. And if it was rigorous it would put to bed (almost) all the arguments in this subforum.

I don't believe I ever said can't be diagrammed. I said has not been to Dan's satisfaction. I am of the opinion that anything that can be done in the physical realm can be diagrammed. In fact we have diagrams for many things which are not in the visible realm.

I have NEVER EVER said that math doesn't underlie CTE. What I have said is that it is likely that CTE must be able to be mathematically represented. I have thought about this many times and done diagrams of my own but I have always been math challenged. Really I OFTEN makes simple addition mistakes so higher-level math is well beyond my ability. My point of view here is that CTE is counter-intutitive and works so well that there just has to be something there.

The issue as I see it is that the few folks here with the math skills and the engineering skills arguing against CTE won't even try to reconcile this on the table with those who know the system best. There are engineers and computer science folks who use CTE. They just don't spend their time here arguing about it. They use CTE like it is supposed to be used, as a tool for aiming without ideology imposed on it.
 
Top