100%... I don't need the bet. However, you suggested that a CTE user will out pot a GB user and that no one will take that bet. You are a CTE user and I'm a GB user. Figured that was the road you wanted to go down. ...and just so we are on the same page. I'm no where near a world class potter...lol
I said under specific conditions I think that the cte user will pocket more. I stand by that and don't want anyone to think that what you said I said is what I said.
In fairness, I quoted again what you said. No where does it include the words "specific conditions". Just a blanket statement that CTE is more effective than GB. ...and of course that no one who believes otherwise is willing to bet to the contrary.
Did you play apa masters this past year in Vegas?In fairness, I quoted again what you said. No where does it include the words "specific conditions". Just a blanket statement that CTE is more effective than GB. ...and of course that no one who believes otherwise is willing to bet to the contrary.
If and when I'm heading down to the States for some level of major event. I'll be in touch. We I didn't speak formally when I bought my case from you during my last Vegas APA Masters visit. ...but at that time we didn't have the rapport we do now
And I outlined many times how I proposed that this can be tested. I didn't say that any particular cte user is better than any particular gb user.In fairness, I quoted again what you said. No where does it include the words "specific conditions". Just a blanket statement that CTE is more effective than GB. ...and of course that no one who believes otherwise is willing to bet to the contrary.
If and when I'm heading down to the States for some level of major event. I'll be in touch. We I didn't speak formally when I bought my case from you during my last Vegas APA Masters visit. ...but at that time we didn't have the rapport we do now
If you don't understand the analogy just say so and I'd be happy to explain it to you.
I understood it and rejected it. Do you not think that the engineers who built the bridge were fully satisfied that they had accounted for all the variables when they built it?
I know from my experiments with CTE, the ball goes. Maybe my subconscious filled in the blanks, maybe it just works. I'm not a good candidate to tell either way as I had played decades of pool at that point. It seemed to work as advertised. It gets you seeing the shot and the shot goes. Damned if I know but I was potting very well when using it. I'll most likely re-visit it but I had to spend my time fixing my crappy fundamentals these last few months.
Your subconscious filling in the blanks is how it works - like every other method (except way more complicated than necessary).
So as long as your subconscious is filling in the blanks, wouldn't it be more consistent for it to do so with only a few aiming points and two references? I'm not talking claims, just if it works or not. If we rely on our subconscious to do things in pool anyway, at least with CTE there are set aims, each with two references. It's easy to sight down the edge of the CB, like sights on a rifle. Then you look where the center of the CB will hit and get your eyes correctly on the shot line. It's not magic, it's a way to simplify and make more consistent.
Than using "infinite" aiming points and only a single reference? I mean if you get good at doing it this way it works just as well, but two references can help. I'm not really the best proponent of CTE as I basically use HAMB with some Perfect Aim System thrown in. When the balls aren't going (who knows, bad day, tired or dry eyes...) the double references let you figure out how to aim a bit easier.
Basically any traditional aiming system you can name. I'm talking generalizations. Ghost ball for example, it's a fine system but you hit the CB at the one point on OB ball for it to go. The point may even be out in space. You could add a CB edge reference to it but it wouldn't make as much sense without a set number of aim locations on the OB, but it could be done.
Several common ones don't fit that description. For instance, Fractional Aiming - it uses the same aim points, including the center-to-edge alignment. In fact, CTE grew out of Fractional Aiming (Hal Houle's old "3-angle" system), and isn't much different today (except for the absurd complexity of its "instructions").
In your opinion it might not be superior Others have a much different opinion if that is ok with you
I said it's not objectively superior - in other words, not for everybody. Everybody's chosen aiming method is superior for them.
Nope... We missed a year of league due to covid. We had won the trip again the year prior but the whole thing was scrapped when covid initially hit our shores, so we cashed out.