# CTE Stepping Cue Ball.

#### Patrick Johnson

##### Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Geometrically, that results in a new CB center less than 1/100" from the original. Pretty fine-tuned stepping.
Yep, that's called accuracy.
You think you can accurately reorient yourself to the CB that small a difference?

That's called delusional (or "CTE").

pj
chgo

#### JB Cases

##### www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
This prompted me to take some experimental measurements on the pool table. Check this out...

I put the cb in the center of the table and then measured the distance from cb center to the middle diamond on the foot rail. The distance was 48.5". Then I stood at the head of the table and looked straight through the vertical ccb line to that middle diamond, as JB suggested. I turned my head about 10° to the left (focusing on the corner pocket now), then shifted my eyes back to the cb. The vertical centerline then looked to be hitting about 1 inch right of the middle diamond. (I had a tapeline on the rail to look at). That 1" change equates to a 1.2° change in cb perspective.

The change in perspective gets bigger, of course, the closer your eyes are to the cb, and also gets bigger the more you turn your head. But I can see how this head turn can be manipulated to give different ccb's when needed. The player just has to know which exact head turn and distance works for different shots. Or maybe the same head turn and distance works for most shots. Don't really care, just thought it was interesting and would maybe shed some light on the "mystery".
And from the shooter's perspective in CTE usage the process is objective not subjective. That's where practice comes in and learning the amount o head turn without cataloging it in terms distance between balls + angle = x amount of head turn. IF however one were to do that then I think one could demonstrate some amazing accuracy with EXACT head movements.

Mohrt showed me how to step objectively and had no need to tell me more than that because when using CTE and practicing various shots it becomes pretty clear what amount of head turn works and what doesn't. FOR ME however since I was already a CTE user and starting with the right preceptions I was abe to have success right away and have never thought even once about how much my head turns towards the side I want to step from. I just was very very pleased to see my personal accuracy when using CTE jump up by the adoption of that technique. I was already quite happy with CTE despite not ever really getting or using the visual sweeps and now doing the stepping which is the same as the sweeps but has an objective reference to fixate on, the edge of the cueball, I am even happier.

#### JB Cases

##### www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Again, why does this metric matter a hill of beans? It is the distance between center to edge and the shot line AT THE OBJECT BALL that matters. There are large differences between the CTE line and the shot line when you get to the object ball.
You're aiming at the cueball in CTE aiming by making objective connections between the cueball and object ball. The cueball is the target that is the only object that the shooter can directly manipulate will by the application of force though and the shooter focuses on sending it down the line that the CTE process establishes. So with the focus being on the back of the cueball and the most simplistic objective orientation being the center of the cueball to the edge the ghost ball line exits so very close to the CTE line that at the very least it means that the shooter is a tiny body movement away from the ghost ball line. So, it is my OPINION that this alone is very helpful in aiming and in fact I proved this TO myself when I set up and used ONLY the CTE line as the orientation with no secondary lines. I also did this well before I discovered these exit line distances and how close together they are.

I think that the secondary lines tighten up the aim even more and that the stepping closes the gap between the objective CTE line and the ghost ball line. I don't know yet how to test this but I am certainly thinking about it.

"Center to Edge demonstration for AZB Forum User JSP. All of these balls are lined up with the same center to edge line. As you can see I shoot all of them with a bridge distance that is about the same. On all shots I start my tip pre-pivot at the left edge of the cue ball and pivot to center ball and then I shoot. I make 4 of 7 shots - barely miss two and the one I miss by more than half a ball is the 4 ball which I inadvertently rolled out of position and didn't put back in it's place in line. This demo was shot in one take only - as of this video posting I have only done it ONE time only. It has not been edited at all."

#### JB Cases

##### www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
You think you can accurately reorient yourself to the CB that small a difference?

That's called delusional (or "CTE").

pj
chgo
Why not? Do you think a human can't do it? How would you test it? Why would you think that a player who starts every shot with a single objective alignment can't refine their feel through practice to get to the shot line?

Just in case you are not aware of how accurate a human can see, which informs how they move most of the time for a person who can see;

"Observing a nearby small object without a magnifying glass or a microscope, the size of the object depends on the viewing distance. Under normal lighting conditions (light source ~ 1000 lumens at height 600–700 mm, viewing angle ~ 35 degrees) the angular size recognized by naked eye will be round 1 arc minute = 1/60 degrees = 0.0003 radians.[1] At a viewing distance of 16" = ~ 400 mm, which is considered a normal reading distance in the US, the smallest object resolution will be ~ 0.116 mm. For inspection purposes laboratories use a viewing distance of 200–250 mm,[citation needed] which gives the smallest size of the object recognizable to the naked eye of ~0.058- 0.072 mm (~55-75 micrometers). The accuracy of a measurement ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 mm and depends on the experience of the observer. The latter figure is the usual positional accuracy of faint details in maps and technical plans."

Some basic properties of the human eye are:

Visual perception allows a person to gain much information about their surroundings:

• the distances and 3-dimensional position of things and persons
• the vertical (plumb line) and the slope of plain objects
• luminosities and colors and their changes by time and direction

As Stan has said, "the eyes lead and the body follows." So as we know the human eyes are fully capable of discerning the distances in questions and if so capable of orienting to them.

I had a guy at my house and he is rated a 630 I think. We played for an hour and he consistently made very thin cut shots but would miss "thick" midtable shots. When we were done we talked CTE a little and he said he had been thinking about trying it. I said well maybe it can help you but you can see the edges with amazing accuracy. He said yeah I have just always been able to see really sharply. So we left it at the following "Maybe"; maybe his superior visual acuity would increase his ability to use CTE and raise his accuracy or maybe the extra things to look at during the pre-shot process would mess him up. That will be for him to think about.

Last edited:

#### Patrick Johnson

##### Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Why would you think that a player who starts every shot with a single objective alignment can't refine their feel through practice to get to the shot line?
I haven't said that - that's you arguing with your strawman again.

What I say is turning the head and eyes to see and orient to a new CB center 1/100" from the original is a patently absurd explanation for it.

pj
chgo

Last edited:

#### JB Cases

##### www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I haven't said that - that's you arguing with your strawman again.

What I say is turning the head and eyes to see and orient to a new CB center 1/100" from the original is a patently absurd explanation for it.

pj
chgo
No one claimed that this IS why one step in the CTE process is to turn the nose and fixate on one edge of the cueball exists. I said I think that the act of stepping the focus to produce the center that is the shot line MIGHT be what closes the gap.

I am stating that the CTE line and GB lines are super close at the back of the cueball facing the shooter and that this is likely to be a meaningful observation in my opinion. You have stated that this means nothing because in your opinion humans can't be exact enough to accurately get on the shot line that way. You are the one making a strawman connection where between a plotted observation and part of one aiming method in an attempt to further knock the method and the users of that method.

I don't have an explanation of WHY the stepping works. Stan says it is because of gearing. I watched his video explaining that and have read the book on it and I can't reconcile it in my head YET. You will say that the answer is obvious, subconscious adjustment. I get it that this is your catch-all for everything that has not yet been diagrammed in 2d to your nobel prize analytical standard. I think that there is likely to be a mechanical reason and a margin of error in the process whereby a turned head at 5" from center and one at 10" from center work equally well because the resulting shot line for both head locations results in a vector well within the margin of error for pocketing the ball when a straight stroke is assumed.

My point remains that FOR THE USER the steps in the process are objective. Even the act of turning the head is objective BECAUSE the task is to do it and focus on the cueball edge and then move the eyes to center ball from there and use that center heading towards the object ball as the shot line.

So IF the ACT of stepping, after the act of identifying an objective perception and aligning to that, produces a viable shot line,over and over, shot after shot, WITHOUT the user having to decide HOW MUCH to rotate the head consciously, then the WHOLE process is OBJECTIVE from the user's perspective because every single choice they made in that process was deliberately chosen. And since the results are consistent then EITHER the magic brain is doing all the calculus OR there is some mechanical connection happening and the amount of head turn is something where there is a parameter in which any position therin works and presumably a person would figure this out rather quickly given that the amount of head turning has limits physical from zero to this effing hurts.

I just know that it works and the only place where I have found that I can "guess" wrong is either the initial perception which is still objectively aligned, or the direction of the stepping (pivot direction), which happens to me on some bank shots most often when it does happen.

Academically I am interested in testing and measuring and possibly confirming Stan's statements on the why or perhaps finding out something he hasn't yet found out about the mechanics involved. Practically I don't care why it works, magic wonderful subsconscious adjustment OR some super fine tuning driven by objectively applied steps because the physical on table results are what matters.

First we observe, then we dissect, then we construct, then we test, then we improve. That is human.

To knock what one does not understand, is also human.

Silver Member
Good Lord!

#### Patrick Johnson

##### Fish of the Day
Silver Member
My point remains that FOR THE USER the steps in the process are objective.
After all this time you still don't understand that word. "Objective" means no personal interpretation - everybody sees the same thing.

pj
chgo

#### tonythetiger583

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
After all this time you still don't understand that word. "Objective" means no personal interpretation - everybody sees the same thing.

pj
chgo
Yeah, I'm gunna give you the point on this one

#### JB Cases

##### www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
After all this time you still don't understand that word. "Objective" means no personal interpretation - everybody sees the same thing.

pj
chg
I said FROM THE USER'S perspective the process IS objective. As in there are instructions for each step of the process and I follow them WITHOUT guessing. Thus if I am wrong then I am wrong THE SAME WAY every time. Then if I try a different CTE perception, they are OBJECTIVELY described and there are ONLY four per cut direction, I follow the process THE SAME WAY and if the result is correct then it's correct EVERY TIME.

Not so sure what your issue is here. If you set up a cut shot that was an EXACT half ball hit which is a known overlap that is OBJECTIVELY clear and I line up on it and the cue IS NOT on the shot line what went wrong? You say everyone sees the same thing but in fact we know that even with the clearest of instructions, even with a shot line drawn out, even with a ghost ball template to use people don't always line up correctly. I am not talking about execution. I am talking about VISION.

When the OB Stroke Trainer came out, the device that beeps at you when your stroke is not straight, my employee Matt could stroke without it ever going off. We set up a straight in shot and tested it. Mine went off frequently (no surprise with my stroke). Either I missed the shot but the stroked straight OR I made the shot and the thing beeped at me. The issue we discovered is that I was lining up to what I thought was center to center, stroking to the center and hitting the center and getting the beep. Matt said I wasn't at center to center. I said yes I am. We set up the camera to catch the cueball and the cue and recorded in slow motion. Turns out that despite me thinking that I was putting the cue down on the centerline I was actually slightly off. So I had to reorient and be sure that I wasn't shifting my vision as I came down into shooting position and that solved it and reduced the beeps I was getting. So IN FACT I had two issues, I WAS NOT SEEING center to center from the standing position and the shooting position the same way AND my stroke is inconsistent. But because I was convinced that I was addressing the shot at center cueball to center object ball I was actually slightly off and that was causing me to either stroke straight and miss or to stroke NOT STRAIGHT and make it. That would be my brain subconsciously directing me to steer when shooting.

We fixed it by having me lined up all four edges instead of just center to center. So with TWO OBJECTIVE lines to use I was able to correct the alignment for straight-in shots. Thus the process became MORE OBJECTIVE for me. Matt could get it done with one line and I needed two.
Yeah, I'm gunna give you the point on this one
Lol, nope. Pat is WRONG here because he fails to understand the usage of OBJECTIVE in the process. It doesn't mean that the users all see differently. In a new process, especially one that is counter to "conventional" methods, one user might see what the instructions are asking for right away and another might need more time to work on picking up the reference lines.

But in the end when BOTH users are clear that they can pick up the OBJECTIVE reference lines correctly then both of them do so and follow the rest of the process objectively and both end up on the same shot line. So for example I could set up a shot and say to the other user something 30-Inside Right Sweep and that other user would know EXACTLY how to proceed from standing to shooting position to end up exactly on the shot line. Conversely, they could do the same for me. And this is exactly how it works between CTE users.

Any subjectivity such as the amount of head turning at one step in the process IS NOT consequential BECAUSE the users quickly figure out where the sweet spot is so to speak and no one needs to speak of the head-turning part of the process in terms of degrees/inches etc....

Pat wants to make this out to be as if that means the user is BIASED. No, the user is inexperienced. With EXPERIENCE they pick up the objective reference lines easily and move to the next step and pick up the next reference lines easily and move to the next step etc....

The whole thing FOR ME is a matter of accuracy and comfort. I KNOW that I am both more accurate and more comfortable and confident in the shot line I adopt when I use Center to Edge aiming. Patrick thinks that CTE should produce ERROR FREE results because those who use CTE dare to use the word OBJECTIVE.

Inability to follow directions does not mean that the directions are not OBJECTIVELY correct. Following the directions but being inexperienced only means that the user needs to practice until they can follow the directions objectively the same way every time. NO ONE - NO PERSON ON THIS PLANET has ever stated that CTE Aiming is an instant upgrade (that's for you Joey) to error-free aiming.

But it is an OBJECTIVE method with OBJECTIVE REFERENCES and OBJECTIVE INSTRUCTIONS. When those instructions are followed OBJECTIVELY with practice the user LEARNS to trust the results without second guessing and FIDGETING LIKE PAT DOES IT.

Pat's aiming instruction is literally fidget til you get it. THAT is subjective. A user trying to aim like Pat would take longer to get to a settled shooting position and is likely to be less consistently on the actual shot line than an experienced CTE user.

I will BET SUPER EFFING HIGH, 10k or MORE that if we design an experiment where beginners are taught to stroke straight and one group is taught GB aiming and another group is taught CTE aiming and another group is not taught any aiming that the CTE group will outperform the other two groups in a series of shotmaking tests. I could be wrong but I am willing to bet on it. Pat is not because being wrong on a pool forum costs nothing. He could care less if he convinces you to not use CTE or jacks with your brain enough that you never bear down to learn it correctly. Your skill level and goals in pool are meaningless to him AS LONG AS he gets to troll on this subject. He doesn't give two shits if you never improve your aiming acuity beyond whatever you can get to with fidget aiming.

And that is my VERY BIASED OPINION based on 20 years of dealing with this guy. He wants to nitpick even when there are no nits to pick. He is completely uninterested in actually testing CTE and being part of figuring it out or possibly making it better. All he cares about is TROLLING the topic.

#### JB Cases

##### www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
After all this time you still don't understand that word. "Objective" means no personal interpretation - everybody sees the same thing.

pj
chgo
YEAH, NO PERSONAL INTERPRETATION. When you CRIED to You tube that I put your name in a video description, which I did BECAUSE I was directly answering one of your assertions, that video was me setting up balls in a semi circle and demonstrating that I approached every single shot with the EXACT SAME steps. THE EXACT SAME ALIGNMENT TO THE SHOT - CENTER TO EDGE, the EXACT SAME CUE TIP PLACEMENT - CUE TIP TO EDGE - THE EXACT SAME PIVOT - FROM THE EDGE TO THE CENTER OF THE CUEBALL. I went around the half moon, using YOUR claims and your diagram to demonstrate that FROM THE USER'S POINT OF VIEW the steps are CONSCIOUS AND UNBIASED

We did this dance 15 years ago and your response was to CENSOR me as if you were in witness protection. Unfortunately I didn't save that video after I uploaded it or I would upload it again. But no matter because I will just redo it and again I will mention your name all over it. EXCEPT this time in the text description of the video I will say that this one is dedicated to a fictional whiny jerkoff whose name is Daft Dumbson. You bring out the absolute best in me PATRICK JOHNSON. Back then I made videos and was NICE and simply addressing discussion points. Now I won't be nice.

I hope you get annoyed every time I write the word OBJECTIVE. Since you can't understand or refuse to acknowledge CONTEXT it is my observation based on your behavior that you are objectively obstinate. Whether that is deliberate or not is unknown to me but given that you consistently troll this topic I would lean towards deliberate.

And, CTE continues to flourish and you continue to provide motivation for me to help it gain a much larger user base. Got a nice project in the works with four tables and cameras and a pool school that will go hard promoting and teaching CTE. I will give you some credit in the school and post a picture of the "critics corner" honoring your dedication to Center to Edge OBJECTIVE aiming. I was regetful that I spent any time with you but actually I am glad of it. It really helped me to understand that you are NOT a sincere person but you are obsessed with helping CTE remain a topic of conversation through your unfounded and ignorant trolling criticism. And that actually has a place in the world as even the most altrusitic of people sometimes need to be fired up and motivated to continue. Critics like you fill that role so through gritted teeth I say thank you. Even the despicable have their uses.

#### Dan White

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Critics like you fill that role so through gritted teeth I say thank you. Even the despicable have their uses.

What am I? Chopped liver?

It's Friday -- be happy!

Silver Member

Silver Member
Whack job.

Lou Figueroa

#### JoeyInCali

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Whack job.

Lou Figueroa
I'd like to see a beginner shoot with that pivot . lol
They don't even know where to hold the cue yet .
When I showed Rodney Morris teaching how to use the ghost ball , Barton says, sure because it's the easiest to teach.
Now, after the latest service pack, he's arguing he can teach beginner cantankerous twitching epilepsy system to beginners .

Silver Member

#### JoeyInCali

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
as opposite to SUBJECTIVE

#### tonythetiger583

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
as opposite to SUBJECTIVE
Woo, we did it guys. We cracked the case

#### boogieman

##### It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
YEAH, NO PERSONAL INTERPRETATION. When you CRIED to You tube that I put your name in a video description, which I did BECAUSE I was directly answering one of your assertions, that video was me setting up balls in a semi circle and demonstrating that I approached every single shot with the EXACT SAME steps. THE EXACT SAME ALIGNMENT TO THE SHOT - CENTER TO EDGE, the EXACT SAME CUE TIP PLACEMENT - CUE TIP TO EDGE - THE EXACT SAME PIVOT - FROM THE EDGE TO THE CENTER OF THE CUEBALL. I went around the half moon, using YOUR claims and your diagram to demonstrate that FROM THE USER'S POINT OF VIEW the steps are CONSCIOUS AND UNBIASED

We did this dance 15 years ago and your response was to CENSOR me as if you were in witness protection. Unfortunately I didn't save that video after I uploaded it or I would upload it again. But no matter because I will just redo it and again I will mention your name all over it. EXCEPT this time in the text description of the video I will say that this one is dedicated to a fictional whiny jerkoff whose name is Daft Dumbson. You bring out the absolute best in me PATRICK JOHNSON. Back then I made videos and was NICE and simply addressing discussion points. Now I won't be nice.

I hope you get annoyed every time I write the word OBJECTIVE. Since you can't understand or refuse to acknowledge CONTEXT it is my observation based on your behavior that you are objectively obstinate. Whether that is deliberate or not is unknown to me but given that you consistently troll this topic I would lean towards deliberate.

And, CTE continues to flourish and you continue to provide motivation for me to help it gain a much larger user base. Got a nice project in the works with four tables and cameras and a pool school that will go hard promoting and teaching CTE. I will give you some credit in the school and post a picture of the "critics corner" honoring your dedication to Center to Edge OBJECTIVE aiming. I was regetful that I spent any time with you but actually I am glad of it. It really helped me to understand that you are NOT a sincere person but you are obsessed with helping CTE remain a topic of conversation through your unfounded and ignorant trolling criticism. And that actually has a place in the world as even the most altrusitic of people sometimes need to be fired up and motivated to continue. Critics like you fill that role so through gritted teeth I say thank you. Even the despicable have their uses.
@JB Cases , if you ever make your way to Iowa, hit me up. I'd love to shoot some stick with you. No high dollar bets, just some real pool and camaraderie. Same offer goes for @Patrick Johnson . You guys.. this is pool, why all the hatred? I guess "Earl" had it right, "Pool is a beautiful game played by ugly people."

For real, I'd hate to think of myself as a mediator, but why keep up the fight? There is 110% no chance of an agreement. Just let it go and hit some balls. It's called PLAYING pool. Become the shot. Become the game. You've both done it through different methods. Have some playful fun and just ignore the OTHER exists. No one cares, no one who can afford \$100 for a book will miss \$100, even if it's a complete sham. I don't think it is a sham. It might not pass 100% objective science but who the hell cares. There's no pool book that will pass 100% scientific objective measurements, even the physics guys. Pool is a beautiful game, stop and smell the roses instead of wading through chest deep shit of your own creation.

The GAME, not the !

#### boogieman

##### It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Critics like you fill that role so through gritted teeth I say thank you. Even the despicable have their uses.
Pool is best played on the RAZORS EDGE. Whatever it takes to get you in the ZONE... EMBRACE IT!!!

EDIT: My final say on the matter, CTE is 100% as OBJECTIVE as ANY aiming method, no more, no less. It all get the same results. Get in the ZONE and make whatever METHOD work for you. SINK the balls, get the PINPOINT shape. If you miss SHAPE, MAKE THE SHOT!!! If you can't make it, WIN with your brains.

Last edited: