CTE Trumps CIT

Straightpool_99 said:
Stan claims to be one of only 3 people who do and to be able to explain it in his book.
Click to expand...

The other two guys are mohrt and a guy who is banned.

I did watch the video and saw nothing surprising, it is perfectly in line with my previous post. Nor do I consider it a proof of anything. The sample size is too small and the angles selected are sub-optimal.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the video disproves anything you have said. You are actually spot on. What the video proves is that CTE is not objective. Stan claims that speed doesn't matter. Well, when he wasn't paying attention, and when he made sure we all knew he was hitting each shot exactly the same, he demonstrated the effects of throw at different speeds. If he had done it only once you could claim it was a fluke. But Stan is a very good shooter and he did the exact same thing twice in a row. We are not likely to get a repeat performance as he knows what to look out for. In fact his very next video purports to show that there is no throw at various speeds. So, yes, I believe the sample size is perfectly acceptable given the situation. I would like a more rigorous study from Stan, but that will never happen. If he wants to claim the first video was a fluke, then let him address that directly.

In other words, do you believe someone whose advertising flies in the face of physics, or do you believe your lyin' eyes?
 
Neil said:
1. Ask yourself why you are so obsessed with nitpicking everything Stan says.

2. Listen to it again. You missed pertinent parts while looking for something to pick at.

3. Why not take it to the table and see for yourself? Oh, never mind, you don't know how to use it, so you can't do that.
Click to expand...

1. Recognizing obvious verbal contradictions, and questioning which verbal statement is correct and which is bogus, is not nit-picking. If I were telling players that my fractional system requires no feel or aiming adjustments, no experience needed, just see and align and shoot, then followed that claim up by saying adjustments are simple and anyone with any amount of experience can do it, I'd expect to be called out on the conflicting statements.

2. I have listened. He says what he says, which is back-pedaling a bit from what he's been saying for years. Not only that, he says things in one vid then says something completely different in another vid. One doesn't have to cherry-pick to spot the discrepancies. For an outsider it's quite obvious. For an insider it's overlooked.

3. I have taken it to the table. I had Stan's dvd1, I've watched every one of his videos on YouTube. I've watched your videos, I've watched John Barton's and many others. The perception gets your body in the general location needed for the shot. Beyond that it appears to be (and is admittedly so based on what proficient CTE users say) a learned or developed system. If I can't just step up and do it with repeated consistency, without needing hours of practice first, it's a learning process like HAMB, which is great for those that need it and are willing to devote the time it takes to get it working. It's just not for me. But when people say it's not like HAMB, that experience or feel isn't a factor, it sparks my curiosity and I can't help but wonder why I don't get it. So when the book comes out I'll buy it, but if it's laced with same ambiguity and contractions as the videos, I'll probably not finish the book. It'd be like reading a novel that contains too many pointless plot twists and character development flaws.
 
Last edited:
If you have a rifle that is dialed in to perfect center target, are you going to put a bullet through the exact same hole repeatedly at differing distances? Just curious what you think.

CTE is like a rifle scope. It gives you the equation. CIT is a variable that CTE helps to minimize. Kind of like scoping high for a longer distance shot. The shooter needs to execute, but the variables are minimized.
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
So how is it that I consciously use the aim lines and CCB to consistently pocket balls? I don’t change anything. My eyes do the alignment, my body follows what my eyes tell me. If I had to adjust every shot differently it would never work and would have abandoned CTE a long time ago. You cannot dispute results.
Click to expand...

Hmm....did you immediately have this success or work at it to achieve such success?
 
Last edited:
One thing I would like to chime in on, regardless of the aiming system a person chooses, they need to be able to deliver the cue as close as possible to a straight path.

As a point of reference, I suggest everyone set up a long shot put a couple balls in front of the pocket to make it a smaller entry, and then shoot 50 shots in the pocket.
If you are missing more than a couple times, any aiming system a person chooses will seem unreliable.
 
mohrt said:
If you have a rifle that is dialed in to perfect center target, are you going to put a bullet through the exact same hole repeatedly at differing distances? Just curious what you think.

CTE is like a rifle scope. It gives you the equation. CIT is a variable that CTE helps to minimize. Kind of like scoping high for a longer distance shot. The shooter needs to execute, but the variables are minimized.
Click to expand...

Well, if I were to comment on your analogy, I'd not compare CTE to a rifle scope. Rather I'd compare it to an optimal scope zero. Zeroing your rifle for a distance that gives you the least amount of compensation for bullet drop for the range of distances at which you intend to shoot.

Let's say you are hunting for boar, sitting near a clearing and expecting the boar(s) to appear at distances around 50-200 yards. You zero your rifle for the distance that gives you the least compensation at these ranges (lets say it's a heavy, slow bullet that has some drop). You still may have to use holdover for the furthest ranges, but generally your instincts will take care of that. When a boar charges you close range and you only get one shot, you'd better hope that you instinctively compensate, though, otherwise you'll die rather grimly at it's tusks.

But range is only part of the equation, there is leading the target, windage....It would be completely irresponsible to hand a 15 year old a rifle with optimal zero and just tell him to aim straight at the target! He'll need to learn all that other stuff, and no amount of scope tweaking can help him do that. Only knowledge and training. I'm going to assume we agree so far.

In that case what we disagree about is how he is to learn: Should you tell him, when a boar is at full speed at some distance, you need to lead him by x amount of his body length and hold over by x amount of inches (a reference point from which he then instincitively improvises to other ranges)? Or do you say "aim straight on" and let him figure it out for himself and don't tell him any of the other stuff (using range targets, obviously)? My contention is that either method can be used, given enough range time, but only one of those is an actual algorithm that he can follow at least for the described range. The other is an instinctive method, like we would throw a rock.

The problem with CTE is, that any way you cut it, it's an instinctive method claiming to be an algorithm....That is a problem. When Stan uses it, it works perfectly, when you use it, it works perfectly, but will it work perfectly when I, Dan White, or anyone else use it? Well, that depends on many factors, and is not just a matter of picking up the visuals or having a straight stroke!
 
Last edited:
Snooker Theory said:
One thing I would like to chime in on, regardless of the aiming system a person chooses, they need to be able to deliver the cue as close as possible to a straight path.

As a point of reference, I suggest everyone set up a long shot put a couple balls in front of the pocket to make it a smaller entry, and then shoot 50 shots in the pocket.
If you are missing more than a couple times, any aiming system a person chooses will seem unreliable.
Click to expand...

Not according to Stan. I suggested the use of the up and back cue ball shot to work on your stroke and Stan laughed at it like I had no clue. Stan says that CTE "straightens out the stroke." So don't worry about whether your stoke is good or if it sucks. Just buy his DVD and your stroke will straighten itself out when you learn CTE.
 
Dan White said:
Not according to Stan. I suggested the use of the up and back cue ball shot to work on your stroke and Stan laughed at it like I had no clue. Stan says that CTE "straightens out the stroke." So don't worry about whether your stoke is good or if it sucks. Just buy his DVD and your stroke will straighten itself out when you learn CTE.
Click to expand...

I like to do that drill and actually put two balls on the head rail so the cueball only has a few MM clearance on either side when shooting up table.

If that is what Stan says and you aren't taking him out of context I would have to disagree to an extent, I guess any thoughtful practice would over time help straighten the stroke(or engrave bad habits?) I would think if a person doesn't give their stroke attention,I think a player is doomed for inconsistency , but I won't argue the point, I am sure some can see my view on it. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
BC21 said:
All of this makes sense. But Stan has been very adamant about objectivity and the fact that a player's experienced judgement is not needed with CTE -- just see and shoot. Now he is back-pedaling a little bit to explain what many have been questioning all along.

And as Straightpool_99 and others have pointed out, naturally over-cutting balls is the standard practice, nothing special. It is convenient though if the system provides an automatic overcut. That's a good thing. But CIT is not a constant. It varies depending on speed, hit, and cut angle.

So, as Stan shows in one of these new vids, when using the exact same perception and sweep for the exact same cut angle (but in two different locations on the table) a player will need to "augment" the shot depending on speed. Yet in another new vid he flatly states that a player doesn't have to adjust or change a thing due to speed. It's statements like this that are very questionable, unless you think like Neil and simply ignore the meaning of words. For anyone that isn't already in the cult, conflicting and non-logical statements are purely ambiguous. And when the obvious questions come in response to such statements or shaky claims, those asking the questions are labeled as close-minded haters.
Click to expand...

You, of all the naysayers, should shut your trap about the word objective. You claim your system is objective, yet has the same issues you find fault with CTE for. You guys are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

Like I said earlier, you people are more concerned with tearing down someone else than building up your own game. And you seem to be doing it to try and get the spotlight off CTE and onto your system. Which as bad as you think Stan is, it makes you look a hundred times worse.

For a guy that came up with a system so difficult or unreliable that he admits he rarely uses it himself, you sure do have a lot to say against another guy that does use his system all the time.
 
Dan White said:
I have to disagree a bit on two points, First, the problem skeptics have with CTE is more like this:

1. Stan claims that CTE Pro1, his variation of CTE based on Hal's work, is a 100% objective aiming system.
You sound just like Rick, aka English!. Are you two related?
2. Stan claims that he can achieve a rather wide range of shot angles from the exact same perception without changing anything and that it is the nature of a 2x1 surface with pockets at the right angles that makes this phenomenon, or "mystery" that "was not supposed to be" a reality.
You are showing your true colors again. It's the same VISUALS.This has been explained to you many times, yet here you are again saying the same thing.
Those are the real issues. More recently we have proven that CTE is not capable of achieving the things you have listed as 1,2,3.
Wrong again.
Second point: The reality is that the debate on item 1 (and by inference item 2) is over. They just haven't realized it yet. It ended as soon as Stan posted the video below, which I assume you have seen.
So, since you think it is over, does that mean you will finally keep your word and stop posting about CTE?
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546
Click to expand...

What we realize is is that we have given you way too much credit in the past. Thanks for fixing that for us!
 
I remember reading a statement either by Stan or somebody, that perception breaks down after 4 or 5 diamonds and then edge to A or whatever the shot calls for has to be adjusted to the next contact spot of B or perhaps a different sweep etc.

I know I read this once and I remember it being a statement of remedy or instruction because it was one of my early clues into a concept of the reality of what we deal with in the business of pool.

If I'm wrong about that, then im all ears. But if true and I know what the hell i read because it stuck in my mind instantly as a point of concept and reality, then that alone is a point of judgment and or tweaking and totally subjective in the sense that a decision has to be made that is not clear cut objectivety.

Where A is or B or C alone is subjective unless you got a laser pointed straight at it with a clear cut explanation as to why it is in fact A or B etc. No way is a person's eyes that accurate or reliable.

Objective in explanation yes but subjective in reality from the human element and if people want to dispute that, then go ahead and have at it but to say I "don't get it" is not a good enough contention of argument that holds water in a scientific medium of facts.

I don't give a shit either way because I say the future of pool will be pure perception if the next two levels are to be attained. It's voodoo but in reality only because of the human element. There's nothing voodoo about pool itself. Pool is the reality of our known universe. There is a constant that can be explained down to the nats ass.

Add a human to the equation and you add heaven and hell and santa claus and bigfoot and the lochness monster to it.

Enjoy. Everyone should play this game and if I had the power, it would be law.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Well, if I were to comment on your analogy, I'd not compare CTE to a rifle scope. Rather I'd compare it to an optimal scope zero. Zeroing your rifle for a distance that gives you the least amount of compensation for bullet drop for the range of distances at which you intend to shoot.

Let's say you are hunting for boar, sitting near a clearing and expecting the boar(s) to appear at distances around 50-200 yards. You zero your rifle for the distance that gives you the least compensation at these ranges (lets say it's a heavy, slow bullet that has some drop). You still may have to use holdover for the furthest ranges, but generally your instincts will take care of that. When a boar charges you close range and you only get one shot, you'd better hope that you instinctively compensate, though, otherwise you'll die rather grimly at it's tusks.

But range is only part of the equation, there is leading the target, windage....It would be completely irresponsible to hand a 15 year old a rifle with optimal zero and just tell him to aim straight at the target! He'll need to learn all that other stuff, and no amount of scope tweaking can help him do that. Only knowledge and training. I'm going to assume we agree so far.

In that case what we disagree about is how he is to learn: Should you tell him, when a boar is at full speed at some distance, you need to lead him by x amount of his body length and hold over by x amount of inches (a reference point from which he then instincitively improvises to other ranges)? Or do you say "aim straight on" and let him figure it out for himself and don't tell him any of the other stuff (using range targets, obviously)? My contention is that either method can be used, given enough range time, but only one of those is an actual algorithm that he can follow at least for the described range. The other is an instinctive method, like we would throw a rock.

The problem with CTE is, that any way you cut it, it's an instinctive method claiming to be an algorithm....That is a problem. When Stan uses it, it works perfectly, when you use it, it works perfectly, but will it work perfectly when I, Dan White, or anyone else use it? Well, that depends on many factors, and is not just a matter of picking up the visuals or having a straight stroke!
Click to expand...



Moving targets are not part of pool so I think we can leave that out of the analogy. So if 99% of your targets are 50-80 yards out, the bullet drop is sufficient to fall within the middle target ring. That would be analogous to CTE CCB shots and acceptable center pocket range. Longer rifle shots require adjustment of scope or sighting. That would be analogous to adding spin or compensating for other factors.

As for when Stan or I use CTE vs a newcomer, that would be analogous to someone not strongly experienced in rifle target shooting, but has fundamental eye hand coordination. They can pick it up with some practice, given a properly scoped rifle.
 
mohrt said:
So how is it that I consciously use the aim lines and CCB to consistently pocket balls? I don’t change anything. My eyes do the alignment, my body follows what my eyes tell me. If I had to adjust every shot differently it would never work and would have abandoned CTE a long time ago. You cannot dispute results.
Click to expand...

Well that is a good question. There are a couple of possibilites but the most likely one in my mind is that you are actually making small adjustments to your routine depending on where the pocket is in your peripheral vision.

There is a question hanging out there like a meatball and I could be wrong but I don't think you addressed it. It goes like this. In Stan's "video 1" we clearly see a reduction in throw of about 1" from a soft shot to hard. So everybody runs around screaming that professionals don't hit the ball softly and this is a professional system so hit the ball hard and then the throw is constant and since CTE gives you an overcut you are OK. But then Stan comes out with "video 2" in which he shims the pockets and supposedly (but not really) hits the balls softly and hard, hitting center pocket every time.

So the question is, which is it? Why did the ball throw an inch difference in the first video when he wasn't paying attention, and now in every video since that one, there is virtually no throw difference at different speeds? I've lost track of how many videos he has done to show that speed doesn't matter. If speed really doesn't matter, then what went wrong in video 1 where he repeatedly demonstrated about an inch of throw?
 
mohrt said:
Of course I worked at it. Are we now claiming CTE is a magic no-effort system? It is not.
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks. I agree that there are no magic-bullet aiming systems. But the way Stan promotes one would think it was a magic no-effort system. That's why some people struggle with it, because it's not as obvious and objective as Stan claims. He has said that CTE requires no individual experience or judgement, that's why he says it's objective. The fact that a player must work at it before proficiency is developed tells me Stan is incorrect about this. That's not a knock on the system. It's just an observation.
 
BC21 said:
Ok. Thanks. I agree that there are no magic-bullet aiming systems. But the way Stan promotes one would think it was a magic no-effort system. That's why some people struggle with it, because it's not as obvious and objective as Stan claims. He has said that CTE requires no individual experience or judgement, that's why he says it's objective. The fact that a player must work at it before proficiency is developed tells me Stan is incorrect about this. That's not a knock on the system. It's just an observation.
Click to expand...

In comparison, Poolology works right out of the box, no tools for assembly required. If you can do simple division then you can make Poolology work on your very first shot. First thing I did was try it on back cuts and I made something like 5 in a row, and not even looking for the pocket.
 
BC21 said:
He has said that CTE requires no individual experience or judgement, that's why he says it's objective.
Click to expand...



That’s never been said, please link to the evidence. CTE’s objective in the sense that you use aim lines and CCB in a consistent repeatable way. CTE is objective in a similar manner that a zero angle shot is objective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top