CTE automatically corrects stroke issues

We could agree to get together and work it out on the pool table and use our minds to clear up our differences on this subject without the insults and bullshit? For some reason none of you are willing to do that so I am left with the feeling that you all ENJOY the conflict.
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 would thoroughly enjoy hitting some balls at some event in the future with you. Again, no bet required.
 
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 would thoroughly enjoy hitting some balls at some event in the future with you. Again, no bet required.
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.

Always happy to hang out and discuss anything in pool or just hit balls.
 
CTE is more effective than ghost ball, for aiming.

We could bet high on that except that no one on your side of this will bet.

Only the cte users are willing to bet on that premise. Why do you think that is?
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.

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 ;)
 
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 ;)
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.
 
Comparing a bridge to aiming in pool is quite silly. Aiming in pool is subjective BECAUSE the task starts and ends in the mind. It can be approached however with objectivity based on the particular references used and the steps to using them.

And let's not be so quick to act like those with science backgrounds get it right all the time.
If you don't understand the analogy just say so and I'd be happy to explain it to you.
 
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?

Let me put this another way, NO ONE has made any sort of comprehensive study or done any scientific research of note into how people aim. You can claim a science/engineering background and take a position on something and inevitably there will be someone else who also has a science background who disputes your position. Who is right?

What you're basically doing is attempting to appeal to the "authority of science" without having any specific research to back you up because such research doesn't exist. A real scientist observes a phenomena and says hmmm, let's figure that out.

And argument from absurdity is also a logical fallacy. Which is why I rejected your analogy. It isn't that the CTE users are saying that CTE defies science but instead they say that CTE works excellently and that the process is OBJECTIVE in the application from all the sensory perception that the user has at their disposal. Like I have said probably thousands of times now it is possible that at the very end of the CTE process the subconscious jumps in and places the player on the correct shot line. But it's kind of weird then why the subconscious sometimes DOES NOT do that.

AND - if the subconscious is so awesome at picking the right shot line then why doesn't it work every time when the shot line is less than .5mm (half of a millimeter) away from the CTE line? Or forget CTE and ask yourself why the subconscious doesn't put any human on the shot line accurately from the first time they pick up a cue? Or going back to CTE why the subconscious SUDDENLY kicks in when people use CTE to give them higher rates of success getting to the shot line AFTER they start using CTE?

I mean it's kind of strange that when I use CTE you say it doesn't work when I miss and that my subconscious did it when I make shots. That doesn't seem very sciencey to me.
 
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?

Let me put this another way, NO ONE has made any sort of comprehensive study or done any scientific research of note into how people aim. You can claim a science/engineering background and take a position on something and inevitably there will be someone else who also has a science background who disputes your position. Who is right?

What you're basically doing is attempting to appeal to the "authority of science" without having any specific research to back you up because such research doesn't exist. A real scientist observes a phenomena and says hmmm, let's figure that out.

And argument from absurdity is also a logical fallacy. Which is why I rejected your analogy. It isn't that the CTE users are saying that CTE defies science but instead they say that CTE works excellently and that the process is OBJECTIVE in the application from all the sensory perception that the user has at their disposal. Like I have said probably thousands of times now it is possible that at the very end of the CTE process the subconscious jumps in and places the player on the correct shot line. But it's kind of weird then why the subconscious sometimes DOES NOT do that.

AND - if the subconscious is so awesome at picking the right shot line then why doesn't it work every time when the shot line is less than .5mm (half of a millimeter) away from the CTE line? Or forget CTE and ask yourself why the subconscious doesn't put any human on the shot line accurately from the first time they pick up a cue? Or going back to CTE why the subconscious SUDDENLY kicks in when people use CTE to give them higher rates of success getting to the shot line AFTER they start using CTE?

I mean it's kind of strange that when I use CTE you say it doesn't work when I miss and that my subconscious did it when I make shots. That doesn't seem very sciencey to me.
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).

pj
chgo
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.

I mean, the point of any aiming system is to take a fine aim, two references lets you average what you are seeing and if that visual info is passed to the subconscious, at least the errors in your aim are averaged between the two and closer to correct. It's likely the aim is just as fine as any though and it is easier for some to use the edge to aim.

Is it really that big of a deal if you take a 15 degree aim and your subconscious makes an adjustment to 21 degree to pocket the ball? It looks right or it doesn't. CTE teaches one way to get it to look right.

I get there are strange claims that people don't agree with and there is an encyclopedic amount of history of bad blood, but if it works it works. It may or may not work how it is said to work, but it works.

I don't think CTE is necessary, but if I'm having a night where the balls just look funny it's nice to know this backup way of aiming.
 
More consistent than what?

pj
chgo
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.

I'd have to really analyze how I aim but I don't want to fully analyze it in case the magic leaked out! 😅
:)
 
What method is that?

pj
chgo
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.
 
...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?
More consistent than what?
Than using "infinite" aiming points and only a single reference?
What method is that?
Basically any traditional aiming system you can name.
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").

Reference alignments can be useful, but CTE isn't unique in that regard - not even close. If you like it (or whatever other method), more power to you - but the idea that it's objectively superior to other methods is false. It's a matter of preference.

pj
chgo
 
Did you play apa masters this past year in Vegas?
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.

Finally back at league now. I don't like to be presumptuous but we have a stronger team this season.
 
Back
Top