CTE automatically corrects stroke issues

[Dan White]

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.

I already did. mohrt looks cb last and cookie ob last. mohrt moved into shooting position any old way he wanted according to the videos he made. I'm sure cookie has his own way, too. You disqualified yourself because any time your use of CTE comes up you concede you are "just a cheerleader." My point was that people come in here discussing their version of CTE, which indicates that the steps taught by Stan are not necessarily required.

 

[Dan White]

I don't believe I ever said can't be diagrammed. I said has not been to Dan's satisfaction.

Let's pretend "it can't be diagrammed in 2D" has not been a mantra of CTE for a decade. What does "it can be diagrammed but not to Dan's satisfaction" even mean? You can either prove it on paper or you can't.

 

[cookie man]

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?

Because we follow the systems steps and you shoot it as dictated by your predetermined outcome in your head. Did you ever have any success with Hal’s half ball pivot at all?

 

[JB Cases]

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?

What the hell are you talking about? He did no such thing. He was a regular guy who spent time with top players in the 20s and 30s and who discovered objective methods of aiming. He would talk to anyone who was interested but he wasn't selling anything.

Yes, a straight in shot is a 15 degree perception in CTE and a five degree shot is also a 15 degree perception. So your question is completely valid. And YOUR answer is "subconscious magic". My answer is that IF it is some sort of subconscious adjustment then great, CTE is a wonderful example of an OBJECTIVE method which brings the mind to the point which it can EASILY get to the shot line. That would be awesome if in fact that is how it works. But the fact is you don't know. I don't know. I know that following the method leads to the shot line.

 

[JB Cases]

Let's pretend "it can't be diagrammed in 2D" has not been a mantra of CTE for a decade. What does "it can be diagrammed but not to Dan's satisfaction" even mean? You can either prove it on paper or you can't.

Um, I don't THINK that a 3d process where the acquisition of the target by a human using stereoscopic vision is easily diagrammed in 2d. But even it is then so what? Ghost ball is "easily diagrammed" in terms of the 2d representation and yet when used in 3d practice it is much more difficult than it "should be" for such an easily diagrammed method. And certainly it is much less effective than CTE in practice per my experience.

 

[ribdoner]

Um, I don't THINK that a 3d process where the acquisition of the target by a human using stereoscopic vision is easily diagrammed in 2d. But even it is then so what? Ghost ball is "easily diagrammed" in terms of the 2d representation and yet when used in 3d practice it is much more difficult than it "should be" for such an easily diagrammed method. And certainly it is much less effective than CTE in practice per my experience.

Did you use CTE when you ran 100+ playing 14.1, if not , what system did you use.

 

[JB Cases]

I already did. mohrt looks cb last and cookie ob last. mohrt moved into shooting position any old way he wanted according to the videos he made. I'm sure cookie has his own way, too. You disqualified yourself because any time your use of CTE comes up you concede you are "just a cheerleader." My point was that people come in here discussing their version of CTE, which indicates that the steps taught by Stan are not necessarily required.

Now I am disqualified? So you can use me to insinuate that CTE doesn't work when I miss a shot but not include me in your "thousands of CTE users" comment?

I understand your point but it is unsubstantiated. First state the EXACT steps in the CTE process. Since this is really about Stan describe the EXACT steps that Stan instructs. Then describe the exact steps that the users of CTE that you say are doing it differently and we can discuss it.

For the record, 2 is still far less than "thousands". You don't want hyperbole and exaggeration so perhaps refraining from using it would help to have a good conversation to figure out the minute details under dispute.

 

[Dan White]

What the hell are you talking about? He did no such thing. He was a regular guy who spent time with top players in the 20s and 30s and who discovered objective methods of aiming. He would talk to anyone who was interested but he wasn't selling anything.

I'm not saying everything about Hal's life was a fraud. He was generous with his free time and enjoyed himself. A little more of that would be good. I'm saying his presentation as to why CTE works (the 2x1 table thing) reads as a joke.

Yes, a straight in shot is a 15 degree perception in CTE and a five degree shot is also a 15 degree perception. So your question is completely valid. And YOUR answer is "subconscious magic". My answer is that IF it is some sort of subconscious adjustment then great, CTE is a wonderful example of an OBJECTIVE method which brings the mind to the point which it can EASILY get to the shot line. That would be awesome if in fact that is how it works. But the fact is you don't know. I don't know. I know that following the method leads to the shot line.

Well that's progress. At least you are saying you don't know why it works. A few years ago you made like an hour long youtube addressed to me purporting to explain how CTE works. When you finally got to the point of explaining it you basically said, "you aim here and it works." I'm glad you have left the ranks of cookie's and mohrt's who refuse even to acknowledge there is a problem.

Following the method does not lead to the shot line. Following the method puts you on the shot line if the balls happen to be lined up that way (straight in for a 15 inside) or in the vicinity of the pocket (shot line) if they are not lined up already (like to the pocket point). HAMB is what takes the player from the CTE line to the shot line. This is why if you follow CTE strictly and do not let your brain take over you will not have success with CTE, IMO.

So if you and I did a video of shooting both 15 degree shots you'd see that mine look identical with the second ball hitting the point. Your videos would show you shooting at a slight cut angle the second time to make the ob go center pocket again. Why?

 

[JB Cases]

Did you use CTE when you ran 100+ playing 14.1, if not , what system did you use.

I never ran 100. I ran 98 once. When I did that I was practicing and playing for hours a day. Most shots in 14.1 are not difficult anyway so it is certainly possible that a person dedicated to brute force practice could achieve some decent runs. Since however the world record is 626 and there are rumors of people having run more I say that running 98 is not a particularly noteworthy accomplishment. Grady used to have a run 100 or it's free guarantee for his exhibitions.

When I ran 98 I didn't know about any objective aiming methods. If I had learned CTE back then and spent the same amount of time working on my game each day I likely would have run much more and done it consistently.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Well that's progress. At least you are saying you don't know why it works.

And it only took 20 years or so. Another 20 years and we might even hear the word "objective" used correctly (be still my heart).

pj
chgo

 

[pw98]

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.

If it makes you feel better I am a dunce at basic mental math (especally if i had to do it in a race, I would lose to a normal 3rd grader...) and I'm pretty good at higher level math. Higher level math is a whole different ballgame and based more on applying concepts vs rigid memorization.

You didn't answer my question (well I didn't really phrase it in the form of a question) about what is seen after the eye shift. Does the ball fraction appear in the corner of the eye or is it the aim line or is it both? I find a I definitely 'see' something different after the shift, and I find that if I mess around with placing either edge or center of the cue ball on the chosen letter of the object ball I see something differently, and normally one of those choices does look like i see a line into the pocket.

Validating (not proving) normal manually pivot CTE mathematically should not be very hard. Pro1 is a different story because the descriptions of how it works are so vague they leave much up to the imagination.

The way I see it Stan's videos are totally disorganized and more of esoteric sales literature than teaching material. For one he never seems to give definitions of the nomenclature. If you watch all of stan's videos and watch your videos and watch lil chris's video and read dr. dave's information (without which all of the other videos are basically useless because they don't include the tables) you get a rough idea of how pro1 works.

I tried to buy Stan's Pro1 DVD a year and a half ago or so and they were out of copies so I was told to wait for the book and by the time the book was out I had already solved many, but not all of my aiming issues. I was taught some (what i consider useless) version of CTE which I posted about here before by a BCA instructor. Patrick quickly (and correctly) shot down its validity. This made me much more skeptical about aiming systems. I tried Fractional Ball aiming and it didn't seem to do that much to help me.

And as I said before the changes in fundamentals that Geno taught me, did more for my aim than any of the other (Pivot CTE, BCA instructors CTE, Fractional Ball, tip contact point aiming, etc) aiming systems I tried. It is worth noting that I had figured out a (what i considered weak) way to fix some of my aiming problems, and using it won some tournaments. I told geno about it before my lesson and he said 'oh, so you figured that out,' so he left it out of the lesson.

So now I'm just trying to figure out a way to fix the remaining shots that I miss the same exact way over and over again and am willing to give CTE Pro1 a shot regardless even though I am somewhat sceptical due to the fact that no compensation is made for distances as is done with Pivot CTE.

 

[bbb]

i have definitely not read all the posts
but i find it
amusing
unbelievable
incredible
almost to wtf but i dont like to use those terms
that you guys have nothing better to do in your day but come on here and continue for 20 years to hash it out

sorry for the sidetrack
carry on

 

[boogieman]

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.

Not going to jump on the heavily tenderized deceased horse meat beating train, but I find the most important thing about CTE is that it actually gets you looking at the balls. You have two references, which is better than one. You can use the two references with any system. It's probably beneficial to divide the balls into "targets" along with the dual references. If you know you are hitting the balls where you mean to hit them, it's powerful, and the second reference helps to get closer to know you're not being the victim of optical illusions. When the balls look funny, if you have a second reference it helps you to fix why they are looking funny.

I'm not a practitioner but I have the book and have worked through some of it. I (possibly incorrectly) didn't pay attention to the angles. I took my normal aim and asked myself, which ABC is closest to where I know the aim is. I then used that perception to set up and shoot the shot. It worked, but I cannot say if it were me making adjustments or what the deal was. It did seem that if I missed, the balls tended to end up in a pocket a little more if they had enough speed to reach another pocket. So maybe CTE somehow increases the likelihood of getting some slop love in a rotation game, maybe not, didn't do enough testing other than getting a gut feel. It's also possible that I missed some shots that would have made it and that's why I noticed the lucky slops a bit more.

CTE does seem to work, it's a workable aiming system, better, worse, you have to decide for yourself, but it's workable.

 

[ribdoner]

I never ran 100. I ran 98 once. When I did that I was practicing and playing for hours a day. Most shots in 14.1 are not difficult anyway so it is certainly possible that a person dedicated to brute force practice could achieve some decent runs. Since however the world record is 626 and there are rumors of people having run more I say that running 98 is not a particularly noteworthy accomplishment. Grady used to have a run 100 or it's free guarantee for his exhibitions.

When I ran 98 I didn't know about any objective aiming methods. If I had learned CTE back then and spent the same amount of time working on my game each day I likely would have run much more and done it consistently.

Don't sell yourself short, running 98 on cloth like Stevens or Fortsman is more difficult than doing so with today's cloth because break shots now yield better results leaving fewer clusters and tables, as a rule, play truer.

BTW, there probably were only 10 to 15 hundred ball runners in Chi area (pop 5 +- mm......SWAG) from the early 60's through the mid 70's at any given time, not counting road players.

 

[cookie man]

I already did. mohrt looks cb last and cookie ob last. mohrt moved into shooting position any old way he wanted according to the videos he made. I'm sure cookie has his own way, too. You disqualified yourself because any time your use of CTE comes up you concede you are "just a cheerleader." My point was that people come in here discussing their version of CTE, which indicates that the steps taught by Stan are not necessarily required.

This post says a lot. First off looking at the cb or OB last is not a CTE thing, it’s a pool player comfort thing. Morht did not move in any old way. It’s either inside or outside as the system defines.

Then to say the steps taught by Sta aren’t necessary is total bullshit. But that sentence by you tells me you aren’t really against CTE, you are just against Stan and you have been ever since your argument a few years ago. In fact you rarely make a post or get into a disagreement without mentioning Stan. There was absolutely no need to bring him into this discussion. I mean did you say that the steps taught by all the other versions aren’t necessary or did you just single out Stan.

 

[Dan White]

Um, I don't THINK that a 3d process where the acquisition of the target by a human using stereoscopic vision is easily diagrammed in 2d. But even it is then so what?

First off, you don't even know if that is what is happening with CTE. Not sure why we're still talking about this. You guys always say CTE can't be proven on paper. You are saying it can but not to my satisfaction. I don't understand what that means. Either you prove it or you don't.

Ghost ball is "easily diagrammed" in terms of the 2d representation and yet when used in 3d practice it is much more difficult than it "should be" for such an easily diagrammed method. And certainly it is much less effective than CTE in practice per my experience.

I disagree. Ghost ball is easy to diagram. You just show the line to the pocket and tell the shooter to aim a tad thinner to account for throw.

 

[Dan White]

This post says a lot. First off looking at the cb or OB last is not a CTE thing, it’s a pool player comfort thing. Morht did not move in any old way. It’s either inside or outside as the system defines.

mohrt approached the cb in a haphazard way because he knew where he wanted to end up. Reread the thread if you even did once yet.

Then to say the steps taught by Sta aren’t necessary is total bullshit. But that sentence by you tells me you aren’t really against CTE, you are just against Stan and you have been ever since your argument a few years ago. In fact you rarely make a post or get into a disagreement without mentioning Stan. There was absolutely no need to bring him into this discussion. I mean did you say that the steps taught by all the other versions aren’t necessary or did you just single out Stan.

I'm not going to keep spelling things out for you.

 

[canwin]

mohrt approached the cb in a haphazard way because he knew where he wanted to end up. Reread the thread if you even did once yet.


I'm not going to keep spelling things out for yothe

mohrt approached the cb in a haphazard way because he knew where he wanted to end up. Reread the thread if you even did once yet.


I'm not going to keep spelling things out for you.

They can barely spell cte and abc

 

[cookie man]

mohrt approached the cb in a haphazard way because he knew where he wanted to end up. Reread the thread if you even did once yet.


I'm not going to keep spelling things out for you.

Yep he wanted to end up at ccb. You always come in left or right to ccb. That’s basic CTE info.

You don’t have to spell things out, your grudge against Stan is well documented and that’s the last I’ll say about it

 

[JB Cases]

I'm not saying everything about Hal's life was a fraud. He was generous with his free time and enjoyed himself. A little more of that would be good. I'm saying his presentation as to why CTE works (the 2x1 table thing) reads as a joke.

Yes I know how you feel about it. Not exactly a carnival barker then eh?

Well that's progress. At least you are saying you don't know why it works. A few years ago you made like an hour long youtube addressed to me purporting to explain how CTE works. When you finally got to the point of explaining it you basically said, "you aim here and it works." I'm glad you have left the ranks of cookie's and mohrt's who refuse even to acknowledge there is a problem.

I made a video and explained how "I think" it works. I didn't say that my opinion is how it works mechanically. There isn't a problem. CTE is a tool that works.

Following the method does not lead to the shot line. Following the method puts you on the shot line if the balls happen to be lined up that way (straight in for a 15 inside) or in the vicinity of the pocket (shot line) if they are not lined up already (like to the pocket point). HAMB is what takes the player from the CTE line to the shot line. This is why if you follow CTE strictly and do not let your brain take over you will not have success with CTE, IMO.

Nope. Follwing the methods leads to the shot line. Not close to it, on it.

So if you and I did a video of shooting both 15 degree shots you'd see that mine look identical with the second ball hitting the point. Your videos would show you shooting at a slight cut angle the second time to make the ob go center pocket again. Why?

First off, you don't even know if that is what is happening with CTE. Not sure why we're still talking about this. You guys always say CTE can't be proven on paper.

I never said that. In fact I said it probably can be proven on paper but that the equations don't matter just like no knows or cares about the equation that proves ghost ball.

You are saying it can but not to my satisfaction. I don't understand what that means.

It means that nothing presented so far has caused you to accept that cte works as described.

Either you prove it or you don't.

In whose judgement?

I disagree. Ghost ball is easy to diagram.

I just said it's easy to diagram.

You just show the line to the pocket and tell the shooter to aim a tad thinner to account for throw.

That easy? Then I guess all the ghost ball aim trainers are not necessary? All the alternative aiming methods were just created out of futility and boredom?