CTE automatically corrects stroke issues

[JB Cases]

After posting this I watched some CTE video that had been posted in the last few months that I hadn't watched and the next video that came up after that video I did what Stan said to do and I think I might understand CTE Pro 1 to some degree now. (I'm not sure really if I'm just aiming on my own or if what he said to do actually does something).

If it actually did work as I see it, I think it is in fact diagramable, they just need to use the right type of diagrams, and it should be very obvious to them how to depict it in 2 dimensions (HINT to the CTE People: The type of diagraming would be similar to diagraming a 4 dimensional 100x100x100x3 hypercube in 2d on paper. IE 3 seperate 3d cubes, or in this case 3 first person drawings/photographs of what you see, before and after shifting your eyes, and then a 3rd one when you apply what you learned/saw after shifting to the actual aiming). This type of diagram is far from mathematical proof or even a easier to attain mathematical solution/demonstration.

Using a program such as 3dstudio or maya or whatever people use these days to render it is definitely possible to render the 3d visuals that CTE-Pro1 produces in 2d then add labels to depict 3 dimensional features. Nowdays its also probably (more like definitely) also possible to render a 3-dimensional virtual reality view of the perspective before and after the shifting as well. One would need to use a VR headset to view the results, however. If this was done, and CTE-Pro1 in fact works, then the successful results would (probably) stick out like a sore thumb when this was watched. And it could all be done by a relatively unskilled 3d artist on cheap computer hardware.

I think one reason they don't release these diagrams is it might be very easy to mathematically/visually disprove that CTE works by releasing them (see below on occlusion vs distance). And for those who are not familiar with mathematical proving/disproving, it is much easier to disprove something than to prove it.

I've had so many aiming systems 'work' for the first few hours then you realize you aren't doing anything different and basically aiming subconsciously the way you always have and wouldn't be surprised if this is the case once again with CTE.

See below.

But either way the claims of objectivity are definitely not true because you have to estimate an angle to determine where to aim the center/edge of the cue ball to on the object ball (A/B/C/EDGE). I think you can do the exact same thing with memorizing ball fractions and identifying angles (which would work reasonably well as long as its not, for example, a cut to the side pocket with the OB so close to the rail that the aim needs to be really precise).

no you're not estimating. You are choosing from a list of options. A person can learn to identify the perceptions very accurately which means that their body will be in one position for edge to a, one for b, and another for c. I have done a few videos explaining this. As for aim not needing to be precise, that only applies when all you need to do is make the ball and your margin of error is huge. Otherwise if you want to play shape then your aim needs to be precise. If the margin of error is small then the aim needs to be very precise. The objectivity is in the fact that edge to a is a clear line, edge to b (center) is a clear line, and edge to C is a clear line. Each one of those perceptions 15/30/45 degrees produces a different body position relative to the cueball.

Learning to recognize and align to those perceptions is the learning curve. Some people get it right away and others need more time.

Basically if I'm doing CTE right (and quite possibly not) after you 'shift your perspective' (move your eyes from the point on the object ball (A/B/C/EDGE) to the edge of the object ball while keeping your head still) you see the fractional ball hit you need to make out of the corner of your eye furtherest away from the pocket, then you remember the fraction you saw and try to line up on it the best you can, or try to keep it locked into your eyes and drop down on it from there without it moving. I have no clue if this is what Stan mean's when he says you will 'see the aim line (after shifting your eyes)' however, but if it is, I think they are not doing a very good job of explaining it.

Based on this description you're not doing it right. You have not understood Stan's instruction/description which is not unusual. You don't shift your perspective to the edge of the object ball. AFTER you have aligned using the edge of the cueball to A/B/C then you move your head slightly to allow one of your eyes to focus on the edge of the object ball and then you bring your eyes to center and that is the shot line emanating from that point towards the object ball.

Common sense from tells me however that what is occluded by the shifting the eyes will be affected by the distance between the eyes and the cue ball. (Dont believe me, look at a object in the distance, place your hand out so the object is partially blocked from view, now move your hand closer to your view, the object now will obviously be completely blocked.) I think this is where the different pivot lengths in standard CTE come into account....and I dont see how shifting your eyes will ever take this into account, without some mathematical formula for how you need to shift your eyes differently for different distances). And even i'm wrong and CTE doesn't work by occlusion the distance between your eye and the OB should affect the angle you shift your eyes in the same way distance affects the angle you need to pivot with normal CTE.

I think you might not be using occlusion correctly here. But before discussing what I think you mean I think it would be helpful to know whether you understand the exact steps and the process. If you would like to do a video chat sometime I can show you and then at least you would have the steps down correctly and thus be able to break down how each step is visually important.

Regarding distance: the farther away the object ball is the smaller it appears. So perhaps the pivot amount/distance is a direct reflection that adusts with distance. And actually you might have hit on something.

Now the CTE people are probably going to say your brain automatically handles this difference in convergence of objects at a distance, I don't really have any complete response to that at this time. However I will note this problem appears to be spawn from from using the same A/B/C/EDGE points on the object ball regardless of distance, which makes the the angle the stick pivot/eye shift takes not constant for the same angle of shot.

I think that there might be merit to the convergence concept. It's got to be something or we are left with the magic subconscious and while I would be ok IF that's the ultimate conclusion I would like to explore the other possibilities.

The only 'aiming system' that I've tried that has given me good long term results (the results are very good and are reflected in how much more consistant I have been at tournaments since using it) was using geno machinos work, which isn't really an aiming system at all, it is using a different eye-cue placement to sight in different cut directions and coming down on the shot from the stance consistently and aiming (most shots anyway) with feel. I don't really use the fractional aiming system part of his teachings, even though I do think they have some merit I find messing with a concious system really throws me out of my rhythm. Now that I've internalized the physical changes of the 'system' (if you really can call it that, its more like better fundamentals) it might be a good time to try to internalize the mental (aiming system part) as well.

Geno's perfect aim IS basically the eyes lead and the body follows. It is more along the lines of let the focus get you close and your brain does the rest. There are many CTE users who have successfully used Geno's teachings AND the CTE process to get the results they want.

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.

It would be helpful to know if you are doing the steps in the correct order and in the correct way.

continued in another post..........

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The fact is that CTE is more accurate than feel.

Yeah, and macaroni is better than pasta.

lol

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Yeah, and macaroni is better than pasta.

lol

pj
chgo

See, this is the point right here. To you there is no difference between pure feel and systematic aiming. So when that is your premise then it is completely expected that you wouldn't think any aiming method is better than any other.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

To you there is no difference between pure feel and systematic aiming.

The list of things you don't understand seems to be endless.

To me there are differences between all aiming methods - but they all require feel to finalize the aim line. You just can't tell where your system ends and feel begins.

pj
chgo

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

I wonder why people just don’t try CTE, or is it more fun to argue about the system.

Think people enjoy arguing about thing, then exploring if they actually work.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I wonder why people just don’t try CTE, or is it more fun to argue about the system.

Believe it or not, some people are capable of evaluating illogical system claims without "trying" the system. For instance, even you and JB can tell that the jelly bean system isn't "objective". Too bad that's about as far as your evaluation skills reach.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

continued from post # 561

The "CTE people" are not neuroscientists and are not thinking in terms of winning Nobel prizes for proving how fire works. They just want to have tools to start fires when heat is needed.

There is no secret meeting of the "CTE people" to discuss what to release and not to release. There are simply teachers who work with Hal's concepts and teach/adapt/evolve them and students who use the tools they are given and learn to master them in order to practically solve the task of aiming. Most are not interested in ideological discussion.

As you wrote you want to simply get better results when you play. Would it matter to you if there was an equation or diagram that "proves" CTE works? Not to me because the diagram means nothing really unless it helps me to implement the information to solve a task. All of us have seen poorly diagrammed instructions that made the task harder and all of us have seen excellent instructions that were easy to follow. I don't have to be a coder to implement code. If I get some code from a trusted source and copy/pasting it into my website solves my issue then I am good there.

Now, all that said I am grateful for any help figuring out the mechanics of CTE and similar aiming methods. Not because I want to prove "them" wrong, but just to understand this for myself first. While I love having a practical and objective method that gets the results I need I do hate doing an objective mechanical method without knowing WHY it works when I feel that there is probably a simple thing in play that is not obvious.

I do think that the eyes and angles of reference are a big key to this. I do think that there are mechanical reasons why CTE works. I am willing to fund "research" into this but I am unable to do it all myself.

A lot of people dabble with aiming systems and do have some initial success but they don't REALLY learn them. I have done videos that I believe shows that when someone starts with just the center to edge line as the initial alignment. I have discovered that the correct shot line which is unknown, is ALWAYS less than .5mm away from the center to edge line. The knockers say that this means nothing. I say it means something and what it means is that the user is focused on the cueball in a spot formed by an objective line that connects the center of the cueball and the edge of the object ball. No guessing as to the starting point. Because of that a person's visual cortex has a clear starting point and they know that the shot line MUST be to the right of that line for a cut to the right and vice versa for cuts to the left. And even they don't know that the shot line is less than .5mm (really less than .25mm for most shots) the fact that they are so close using nothing more than the center to edge line to orient themselves to the shot allows them to "find" the shot line to a higher degree of consistency than feel. How much more consistent than pure feel? I don't know yet. Better than ghost ball? I think so but I don't know for sure yet on that either. But imagine for a moment that a person uses this AND ghost ball? Would we see a higher success rate than using just ghost ball? I think so. Ghost ball is literally an imagined ball sitting adjacent to a real ball. So the objective part in ghost ball is finding a line from the pocket to the back of the ghost ball and the subjective part is holding that spot in one's vision as one then goes back to the cueball and tries to imagine a ball in the right size and space and thus have a center of that imaginary ball to align the center of the cueball to WHILE at the same shifting the position of that imaginary ball just a "tad" to account for the contact-induced throw. So at the very least using one FULLY objective reference whereby the known line is so close to the gb center line then I think that could help a lot.

What happens when we add in more objective references for the eye/brain connection to use? Is it possible then that this can work seamlessly for the user to get them to the shot line? I think that this is exactly what CTE does for the user. Now the question is whether or not the process has a mechanical component that is an unknown variable OR whether the OBJECTIVE process leads the user to be just a smidge off the shot line and the subconscious does the rest. OR some combination of both.

Regarding pivots; I have never been a fan of the pivot. To me the pivot is something that is a mechanical movement that works but why it works is beyond my ability to explain. It trips me out that this works so well as a hard mechanical move without knowing why. I hate when I teach and I come to the pivot and I have to say just do it. Now, Stan has introduced the concept of "stepping" the cue ball by focusing on one side of it and letting the eyes come to center and that center being the shot line. For Stan's reason for calling it stepping please watch his videos. This activity produces a different center for each side. This is super counter-intuitive but it's actually true. So combined with the rest of the instructions this process results in the correct shot line being acquired consistently. With stepping, I have found that I don't have to pivot ever.
Stan has introduced the concept of "gearing" as a way to explain how CTE works. I admit I really don't follow how that works just yet but when I get around to it I will really read and listen to what he said on it and work it out on the table. There is however no "gearing" instruction in the process. So IF gearing does describe something that is happening then great but for me it is not necessary to know about "gearing" in order to use CTE aiming correctly. Many early scientists were right about the mechanisms of observed phenomena and were also wrong about many of them. Just because a person doesn't get it all right in the description of the mechanics doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist.
Anyway, I have work to do so I hope that I have addressed your comments adequately. For the record I have a podcast coming up with an opthamologist to discuss what the eyes and brain are doing in the aiming process. I am looking forward to that and anything that you think I should ask him would be helpful.

 

[JB Cases]

Believe it or not, some people are capable of evaluating illogical system claims without "trying" the system. For instance, even you and JB can tell that the jelly bean system isn't "objective". Too bad that's about as far as your evaluation skills reach.

pj
chgo

Yes we are capable of that and we are capable of understanding that multiple lines of sight connecting multiple points are OBJECTIVE.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...multiple lines of sight connecting multiple points are OBJECTIVE.

Objective references (CTE isn't the only system with those) don't make the entire aiming process objective - particularly the last bit where you actually settle on the aim line.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Objective references (CTE isn't the only system with those) don't make the entire aiming process objective.

pj
chgo

Correct, but they can make the process objective to the user. For example if you present ten shots and I use CTE I don't really KNOW if the shot line I get on is right or wrong. I know that I objectively applied the system and because I have mastered the steps I know that I am applying them correctly. So wherever there is a choice to be made it is made between objective references. Center to Edge (half ball) is objective. Both of us will be in practically the same position relative to the table and the shot if we are told to stand where that line splits our noses. Then if we are told to pick edge to A and stand there we will both shift our bodies about the same amount relative to the cueball. Then if we are told to turn our head to the right or left and stare at the edge of the cueball we would both be able to do that fairly easily. Then when we are told to move our gaze from that cb edge to the center we could do that. And then told to put the cue down on that center pointing in the direction of the object ball we could both do all of those steps without guessing.

That's why the process is objective.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Correct, but they can make the process objective to the user.

"Objective to the user" is an oxymoron - about the most fundamental characteristic of objectivity.

For example if you present ten shots and I use CTE I don't really KNOW if the shot line I get on is right or wrong. I know that I objectively applied the system and because I have mastered the steps I know that I am applying them correctly. So wherever there is a choice to be made it is made between objective references. Center to Edge (half ball) is objective. Both of us will be in practically the same position relative to the table and the shot if we are told to stand where that line splits our noses. Then if we are told to pick edge to A and stand there we will both shift our bodies about the same amount relative to the cueball. Then if we are told to turn our head to the right or left and stare at the edge of the cueball we would both be able to do that fairly easily. Then when we are told to move our gaze from that cb edge to the center we could do that. And then told to put the cue down on that center pointing in the direction of the object ball we could both do all of those steps without guessing.

That's why the process is objective.

You really don't see the points in that process where judgment comes into play, huh?

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

"Objective to the user" is an oxymoron - about the most fundamental characteristic of objectivity.


You really don't see the points in that process where judgment comes into play, huh?

pj
chgo

I see points where choices come into play. WHICH PERCEPTION is the right one? Well, that would come from cycling through the choices and eliminating the ones that are clearly, objectively not correct AND practice and experience.

However if I were to teach someone CTE and knew that they could apply it correctly then when that person comes to a shot they have never tried they can ask me and I can tell them what the perception is and they can then use that perception and go through the rest of the steps and get to the shot line.

I have to say things like "objective to the user" because that's what the process feels like for the user. OF COURSE there is subjectivity any time a human being does something. Ever had an eye exam? Which is better 1 or 2? Better 2 or 3? But how much of the process is subjective and how much is objective?

When you do your fidget aiming you are moving around and using whatever references are available UNTIL you decide to stop and pick a line. When a CTE user aims they go through several clear steps and they get to a line that has emerged from the use of the process?

Do you think that I KNOW that the invisible shot line from the center of the cueball IS absolutely going to the center of the invisible ghost ball when I use CTE? No, I don't KNOW it because there is no green light above the pool table telling me or anyone else when that INVISIBLE line is found. You don't have it with the fidget method, or the ghost ball method or with poolology or 90/90 or CTE, no one does.

ALL that we have is analysis and decisions. So if I tell you to aim a shot you will fidget around and eventually settle on a line and because of your experience level you will often be correct. HOW often you will correct is the key. What types of shots are you more or less accurate with?

So when a CTE user aims they ARE very very likely to be more accurate than you on a broader range of shots. They don't hunt for the shot line they follow a defined process that allows a line to emerge. If I tell you to hit the ball at 3 o'clock you are likely to hit it at 3 o'clock. The next person can do it too. Because a clock face is an objective reference. You're not going to find many people who can't point to where 3 would be on the face of a disc. So if I say your choice is to hit the ball at 3 or 9 then that instruction will be OBJECTIVE to the user.

My 8 year old understands this. I taught her 90/90 and she gets on the shot line now. She didn't argue with me, she followed the directions and her face lit up like opening presents on her birthday because she understands that the fundamental task that brings joy in pool is making the shot when you want to. So since she was "aiming" using pure feel and not making many shots when she learned a simple method that instantly increased her ability to make shots she was super happy. She OBJECTIVELY applied the instructions and immediately increased her skill level.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...there is no green light above the pool table telling me or anyone else when that INVISIBLE line is found.

Took you long enough.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

And another one who breaks his words. WTF is wrong with you people????

after I said:

lol. I like JB but he's the one that most closely fits this statement.

You're right. This sounds kind of harsh although I did say I liked you. My only explanation is two-fold I guess:

1. This is on the heels of your more and more ridiculous woofing with Lou,
2. It is in response to this:

Your answer, as related to White and his posse of losers with their incessant rants about CTE Aiming, is this=========>
Any person who becomes so self absorbed with the concept of controlling others, has an obsessive compulsive disorder bordering on manic depressive.
Described metaphorically, that person has a great big empty hole through the middle of their mind. They can never hate enough, they can never dislike enough. they can never argue enough, they can never lie enough, they can never proclaim their "innocence" enough, or never be negative enough to fill up that hole.
The only thing that will come close to filling that hole is REVENGE.
And then someone asks the question “what do they want revenge for”??......and the answer is “they want revenge for being born”.

Do you think this is an appropriate post? I'm sure you don't because when I deflected it your way you were insulted.

 

[JB Cases]

after I said:


You're right. This sounds kind of harsh although I did say I liked you. My only explanation is two-fold I guess:

1. This is on the heels of your more and more ridiculous woofing with Lou,
2. It is in response to this:

Do you think this is an appropriate post? I'm sure you don't because when I deflected it your way you were insulted.

Understand Dan that from the beginning I was a student and just amazed by something that wasn't taught anywhere yet worked awesomely.

I didn't have any dog in the fight until the day I started getting called a religious zealot and a brainwashed cult member for the absolutely heinous offense of not being able to explain in detail the exact mechanics with diagrams and formulas.

When I was attacked and people attempted to bully me into submission is when I chose to take a strong side.

Let's be clear about one thing, Hal never forced anyone to learn what he was teaching. He decided to write it up as best he could at 70+ and put it on the net with his personal number. He did this simply to share what he knew and never asked for a penny from anyone as far as I knew.

In my mind the people who picked up the phone and called him don't deserve to be knocked. They deserve credit for reaching out and learning and trying something.

Something that could be quickly abandoned if the user didn't like it with no detriment to their game. No one was coerced to call him.

He didn't spam the forums with his offer incessantly. He gave of his time generously and freely. He shared his notes and observations with others. Some of them have since taught thousands of students how to aim based on hal's methods. Most have chosen, after seeing how Hal was treated, and how Hal's students who dared to speak positively about his methods were treated, chosen not to engage on this topic except in very very limited ways with a comment here or there.

A lot of these people are accredited bca instructors who very much followed the conventional ghost ball centered way of aiming until they met Hal. Many of them are accomplished professionals in their fields. All of them share a deep lifelong love of pool.

For Hal and for them the journey was and is only worth it if that love comes with a lifetime of discovery and sharing. These aren't the hustlers, the road players, the con-artists in our sport. No, they are the backbone, the weekly players, the league champions, the team glue, the railbirds, the fans, the teachers who ignite the same love in new players.

When I saw that you people would insult and denigrate these people for a slight difference of opinion on the mechanics of a process I chose to resist that with all the words available to me.

The main difference is that while I am cheerleading for aiming systems that I call objective I am simply making people aware of something that might keep the love of the game alive for them just as it did for me. When you insult and denigrate those who have made the effort to try and reported some success you are actively involved in trying to stop people from exploring. You are denigrating the selfless actions of a man who chose to try and help by sharing something he found to work well.

Now, I get it that you think that the "truth" is being trampled on and you must crusade against that perceived violation. In this case you are not compelled.

You can let the table tell the player what works and what doesn't. Clearly Hal Houle was not the first person on earth to explore many ways to aim. Just imagine how many times someone thought they found the fountain of aiming only to find out that their method was not broadly reliable.

Now imagine someone coming around with something that actually works and is reliable. Something that makes some champions take notice of. Of all the skill levels champion caliber players are most likely to be able to separate the effective from the not effective.

My question is this? Why stop players from exploring?

Objections can be made without the insults. They can be there for the record. Why the mocking?

Violence begets violence. There would no Lou/John without Lou being completely ugly about my report of my day with Hal. Unlike others I didn't choose to cede the playground after the bully started in. Imagine a completely different time where the critics and the teachers and the students got together, had a rocking couple of days and sussed out every possible permutation of Hal's instructions. And when they parted everyone was on the same page about the methods as to process, implementation, mechanics, psychology, effectiveness..... And we could thank Hal for his service to pool and go on about our lives with a fully diagnosed and dissected new set of aiming systems for people to try.

Why is this reality preferable to that one?

 

[JB Cases]

Took you long enough.

pj
chgo

Lol, I have said this every day of this discussion for the past 20 years.

So in the absence of that we are left with trying and keeping whatever methods prove to be effective.

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?

Don't answer. It is because they are all ghost ball users and had been for most of their pool playing lives.

Unlike actual religion the effectiveness of an aiming method can be tested in real life and recorded.

So really Pat, you still have quite a ways to go on this topic.

 

[JB Cases]

"Objective to the user" is an oxymoron - about the most fundamental characteristic of objectivity.

Um, if a user can't say that they approach something objectively then what you're saying is that objectivity cannot exist because no person can know that they are being objective.

A gun is objective to the user. A user might develop several methods of using the gun but all are going to be directed by the inanimate gun.

The balls are inanimate, the table is inanimate. The only animation is the player. The player has to settle on a line and hit the cue ball. That's it. What happens after that determines if the player gets another shot or not. So in your mind a player is unable to measure success using various techniques and is unable to objectively approach trying these methods. In your mind a player is unable to name specific steps taken with clear connected references and say I followed these directions without bias.

Is all this really your position?
Do you really believe that no pool player is self aware enough to recognize clear improvement with only the method of aiming having changed?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Um, if a user can't say that they approach something objectively then what you're saying is that objectivity cannot exist because no person can know that they are being objective.

lol

The usual word salad.

pj
chgo

 

[boogieman]

In your CTE trials can you make balls from different locations using the same perception lines? Can A inside make balls from multiple locations?

Of course it can, but this doesn't mean it proves or disproves the central argument about whether it's the subconscious making the adjustments. That said I don't care how a system works. I trust my subconscious to account for cling/throw/deflection/swerve/speed/etc so what's wrong with it. My subconscious is far more trustworthy than my conscious mind when relating to actually performing the shot.

The central argument is whether CTE is geometrically correct or it's subconscious adjustment. I say who cares... the "argument" should be does it work or does it not work to pocket balls/get shape/play pool.

You can't have a proper DEBATE without agreeing on the terms of the debate and what you're debating. Therefore the entire debate/argument is flawed. I.E. it's a waste of time.

 

[boogieman]

Regarding pivots; I have never been a fan of the pivot. To me the pivot is something that is a mechanical movement that works but why it works is beyond my ability to explain. It trips me out that this works so well as a hard mechanical move without knowing why.

Pivot is simple, it's offsetting deflection. Period. Full stop.

You can do this if you have a good enough feel for your stick. I'll often use a punch stroke combined with an offset to throw the ball. If you're using a standard shaft try this. Set up an 8 ball rack. Set the CB on the head spot, then move it to the right exactly in line with the ball in the second row.

Give the CB about two tips right and one tip up. Punch it decently hard, break speed. You will hit the head ball square as hell. How does the CB hit the head ball square if it were one ball off? Deflection.

Do the same setup and move your bridge to the right about half a ball width (you'll be past the edge of the CB in space), pivot to the left so your tip is on the ball. Hit it. What are your results?

Pivot is one tool to cancel deflection/use it depending on what you do. It works real well to get extra juice off of hold up type shots.