CTE Trumps CIT

[Dan White]

I asked, he said his table has a slight divot on the spot, he was just avoiding that for the video.

Geez mohrt, why does everything with Stan have to be so difficult? Two days ago he made the exact same video on the exact same table. In the first video he puts the ob on the foot spot. In the second video he puts the ball above the foot spot and adds some shims to the pocket. Why on earth would he change the shot conditions if he wanted to demonstrate something? Isn't a dimple a good thing for assuring exact placement each time?

I mean, if Brian is right, then we have another problem.

 

[mohrt]

Geez mohrt, why does everything with Stan have to be so difficult? Two days ago he made the exact same video on the exact same table. In the first video he puts the ob on the foot spot. In the second video he puts the ball above the foot spot and adds some shims to the pocket. Why on earth would he change the shot conditions if he wanted to demonstrate something? Isn't a dimple a good thing for assuring exact placement each time?

I mean, if Brian is right, then we have another problem.

I'm going to assume that Stan knows you are paying particular attention to the exact place the ball enters the pocket. A dimple in the table is not a perfectly flat surface, and could possibly create a small nuance, enough to affect the ball travel, so why not just avoid it to remove all doubt? Sounds logical to me.

By the way I was testing myself a bit ago on a long, 30 degree cut where CIT is maximal. Even when I try to use the steady medium speed, I pocket cleanly but there is no way in hell I can hit the dead center of the pocket consistently. It's typically "near center" and I'm not using 3 1/2 pockets on a 10 ft table either, mine are more like 4 5/8 on a 9 ft. Granted, I don't play a lot these days an my stroke totally affects my shots. When I try to apply HARD stroke, I really can't tell what is effect of my stroke vs CIT and CTE. But I still pocket them ok.

 

[Neil]

Would you like to put your money where your mouth is? I don't need to see "many" examples. Show me, I dunno, TWO times where I have ever said that. I'll give you 10 to 1, my $1000 against your $100. You can even recruit your friends to help you find such a statement. You have until 9 am eastern to agree to the bet and I'll give you 7 days to find two examples. Your call."



Careful, Neil. Private messages never really go away.

I'm going to take my own advice and let you be, other than our little bet. I just want to demonstrate one time to Paul that you really are an empty suit. The other tactic you guys use is to cloud the issue by starting a flame war. To bad for you the flamer in chief is banned.

Another lie, you aren't banned. I have no desire to go back and read your drivel another time. You know it's there unless you went back and edited them out.

What ever happened to you not posting about CTE anymore until the book came out? Oh yeah, another lie.

 

[mohrt]

I'll put my self out there, why not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaocBWZGMvo

A few notes: This is a full table cut 30 deg perception, so I can't see quite all of the pocket. I picked out a reinforcer I already had on the table for the CB. I didn't use an reinforcer for the OB, so my placement of it is slightly different every shot. I wanted to be clear I'm aiming these with CTE, and not memorizing spots on rails or what have you.

8 balls, I missed one hitting the inside pocket face, and reshot it.

I don't know if this proves anything, probably not. I wasn't trying to vary shot speed, I was just shooting a 30. For not shooting much these days (once a week, as I started up leagues again) I thought I was doing alright.

I should try again with a curtain, I'm totally not looking at the pocket.

 

[BC21]

So you figure the placement of the ob above the spot instead of on the spot is responsible for a 5 degree shallower angle, and this shallower angle causes far less throw for various speeds? I have to say, if Stan were slick enough to consciously plan that he's in a class by himself. Pure genius.

If I had more time and inclination, that would be a fun theory to try out on the table. I can't really believe that small a change in ob position would negate the throw differential in the various shots, but stranger things are true I suppose.

mohrt, can you ask Stan why he placed the ob above the spot on the second video? I know he won't answer me.

I set the shot up and shot it aiming at a 3/4 shot. I used almost a tip of top for a natural roll and the CB hits the rail in the same place Stan hit the rail on his follow shots. With OB on the spot the angle is closer to 20, probably like 17 or 18. But here's the throw info from billiards digest a few years back.....

 

[BC21]

I'll put my self out there, why not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaocBWZGMvo

A few notes: This is a full table cut 30 deg perception, so I can't see quite all of the pocket. I picked out a reinforcer I already had on the table for the CB. I didn't use an reinforcer for the OB, so my placement of it is slightly different every shot. I wanted to be clear I'm aiming these with CTE, and not memorizing spots on rails or what have you.

8 balls, I missed one hitting the inside pocket face, and reshot it.

I don't know if this proves anything, probably not. I wasn't trying to vary shot speed, I was just shooting a 30. For not shooting much these days (once a week, as I started up leagues again) I thought I was doing alright.

I should try again with a curtain, I'm totally not looking at the pocket.

Nice table, nice shoot'n. :thumbup:

You hit all those balls with a good firm stun shot, like Stan does in most of his clips. At that distance, CTE must be lining the shot up for at least 3 or 4 inches right of the pocket, a big overcut. The stun shot at that angle produces a good 3 to 4 degree throw, and since you pocket the balls well the system must be targeting 3 to 4 degrees right of center pocket. A softer shot from there would have more throw and may end up hitting the left point or an inch or so away from the pocket.

CIT is only trumped by using outside spin, or top or bottom spin. It really makes no difference what system or method is used, CIT exists.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Would you like to put your money where your mouth is? I don't need to see "many" examples. Show me, I dunno, TWO times where I have ever said that. I'll give you 10 to 1, my $1000 against your $100. You can even recruit your friends to help you find such a statement. You have until 9 am eastern to agree to the bet and I'll give you 7 days to find two examples. Your call."



Careful, Neil. Private messages never really go away.

I'm going to take my own advice and let you be, other than our little bet. I just want to demonstrate one time to Paul that you really are an empty suit. The other tactic you guys use is to cloud the issue by starting a flame war. To bad for you the flamer in chief is banned.

Go for it Neil. Here's a quote he's made in one of my threads. Post 416 http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=441772&page=28

Thanks for your suggestions. I've tried Stan's method, tried Hal's method but I believe aiming is not an issue for me, so I don't want to screw that up by tinkering with a pivot aiming system. I originally started reading these threads because I had heard that CTE could help a lot with multiple rail banks. That was really my interest, but well, let's leave it at that.

I've become interested in the idea of why pivot systems seem to work for some and not others, Stan's method in particular. I don't think there is any mystery to EM's method as his first step is to identify the contact point and then go from there. I'm not trying to brow beat you about contact points, but it seems to me you are aiming at contact points in a roundabout way. If there were a way to pocket a ball without knowledge of where the contact point is, I'd call it witchcraft.

Bonus question: Who theorized that small pebbles float, just like a witch?

 

[mohrt]

Nice table, nice shoot'n. :thumbup:



You hit all those balls with a good firm stun shot, like Stan does in most of his clips. At that distance, CTE must be lining the shot up for at least 3 or 4 inches right of the pocket, a big overcut. The stun shot at that angle produces a good 3 to 4 degree throw, and since you pocket the balls well the system must be targeting 3 to 4 degrees right of center pocket. A softer shot from there would have more throw and may end up hitting the left point or an inch or so away from the pocket.



CIT is only trumped by using outside spin, or top or bottom spin. It really makes no difference what system or method is used, CIT exists.

I don’t doubt that. On a long shot like this I’m going to shoot firm given the choice. If I’m playing one pocket and I want soft pocket speed, I’d need to take those variables into account as the shooter.

[edit] I tried the same shots at a soft pocket speed, and noticed that I instinctively put top spin to the ball when I shoot these types of soft shots. Years of pool shooting has taught me to do this, regardless of how I'm aiming. Top spin counteracts the horizontal spin on the OB, effectively reducing CIT. I was still pocketing consistently. As I am at a half ball hit, I am at maximum CIT, so this is the worst case scenario. I'm going to go with reason that the same top spin is consistently effective throughout the entire bell curve of CIT from 0 angle to 90 angle.

 

[Neil]

Go for it Neil. Here's a quote he's made in one of my threads. Post 416 http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=441772&page=28

Thanks. But one thing in pool I learned a long time ago is that those so willing to quickly throw out big numbers on a bet usually have no intention of paying off when they lose. (J Barton is an exception) So there was no way I was going back through his posts for nothing. He would most likely say he won because he didn't use those exact words that I stated.

What he doesn't even realize is that he knows he has stated that he has no intention of ever using CTE. But he still hasn't bothered to learn enough about it to understand (despite being told numerous times) that to learn CTE, you have o take it to the table and actually work with (use) it.

So, when he states that he won't use it, he is actually saying he won't learn it.

 

[Dan White]

Go for it Neil. Here's a quote he's made in one of my threads. Post 416 http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=441772&page=28

WOW, is THAT dishonest! I thought we were having a good conversation in that thread. Guess I'm going to have to watch my back around you, Vorpal!

Neil accused me of basically being someone one who is only here to bash Stan and never have any interest in actually learning how to make it really work. They all accuse me and Lou and Brian and English! of having some secret hate filled agenda against the big bad CTE enemy.

Neil accused me of saying "many times" that I never had an interest in LEARNING CTE. You provided a link that supposedly shows my callous attitude against CTE. Even when I read it I thought, "Huh, that doesn't sound like me, but I guess I did say that." Then I looked at it in context:

This is the full, unedited version of the quote. PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION to what you said first:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5757975&postcount=416

This was in a thread discussing ALL pivot systems and how they related to CTE. We were discussing mostly your system and EM's (forgot now what system that was). Anyway, the clear context is that you were suggesting different pivot systems I could try. In particular, you said, "Then you could see if that would get the visuals and rotation working for you. Got nothing to lose." My reply to you was basically that I did not have a problem that I was trying to solve by using a pivot system, since you know nothing about my game, I told you that. I thanked you and everything was cordial.

That is a FAR CRY from what you are trying to make it look like. It's like the Trump phone call to the gold star widow. Total BS reporting.

This is why bets like the one I proposed never actually happen. Somebody claims you uttered the exact words, ignoring the context completely. In fact, Neil said I never had interest in LEARNING CTE. What I actually said in that post is that I wasn't interested in changing up my game and "tinkering with," or USING a PIVOT SYSTEM (and not even necessarily Stan's version). I can be interested in a system and still not use it as my primary method.

The fact is that I would be pleased as punch if Stan's system worked the way he says. It would be a great thing for pool and I would buy the first 10 of his books. THAT is something I have said many times.

 

[Dan White]

Thanks. But one thing in pool I learned a long time ago is that those so willing to quickly throw out big numbers on a bet usually have no intention of paying off when they lose. (J Barton is an exception) So there was no way I was going back through his posts for nothing. He would most likely say he won because he didn't use those exact words that I stated.

What he doesn't even realize is that he knows he has stated that he has no intention of ever using CTE. But he still hasn't bothered to learn enough about it to understand (despite being told numerous times) that to learn CTE, you have o take it to the table and actually work with (use) it.

So, when he states that he won't use it, he is actually saying he won't learn it.

LOL. Neil, you are so predictable you make me look like Nostradamus:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6004221&postcount=16

There's another thing that I've always let slide, because I've mostly ignored your posts over the last year. How on earth do you know how much time I have spent at the table and with the videos and online trying to make CTE work for me? It is impossible for you to know yet you say it anyway just to try and discredit me.

How about answering what should be a no brainer question for you: Using CTE Pro1, how to you pocket a cut shot slowly and then the same shot hard and still make the ball go down the center of the pocket? If you want the bickering to stop you'll help us get to the bottom of the problem. Oh, I forgot... you have no idea. PM's and all that...

 

[Neil]

LOL. Neil, you are so predictable you make me look like Nostradamus:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6004221&postcount=16

There's another thing that I've always let slide, because I've mostly ignored your posts over the last year. How on earth do you know how much time I have spent at the table and with the videos and online trying to make CTE work for me? It is impossible for you to know yet you say it anyway just to try and discredit me.

How about answering what should be a no brainer question for you: Using CTE Pro1, how to you pocket a cut shot slowly and then the same shot hard and still make the ball go down the center of the pocket? If you want the bickering to stop you'll help us get to the bottom of the problem. Oh, I forgot... you have no idea. PM's and all that...

Once again, you prove my point. oh, go ahead and post that pm if you really have it. I'd like to see what it actually says.

EDIT: I know how much time you have spent because you have said that you have no intention of using it. You never got the DVD and worked through the steps in it. All you have done is take a few shots here and there so you could say that it did't work. You never actually WORKED with it.

 

[paultex]

If Dan, Lou, BC21, Denwit, you, or any one else want to discuss the merits of CTE, you should at least have the decency and smarts to actually learn it first. Otherwise you all sound like fools. You all are debating a subject you don't even know much about and trying to come off as experts on it.

Sorry the other post went over your head. I thought it to be pretty clear. As far as me being blunt, that's a laugh. And if you think trolling is good for pool, you're nuts.

At what point or direction of time, would you say, I am qualified to be "learn'ed"?

Would you bet money that you know more about that question than I do? We don't have to physically bet for you to give me an answer. It's just a fictitious way of putting it into the form of a question when it comes to certainty and ofcourse, ultimately merit that you find important.

Stan has enough merit for me to consider him ok in my book and so does the other guys you have spelled out this time around, so at least now you are being more direct and I can accept that as merit on your part.

As a side note, to be good at something, one has to be brutally honest with themselves. This means the humble shit needs to be tossed out as if it were common garbage. When it comes to the subject of pool, I consider myself more knowledgeable than most. I cannot say what that equates to though, but I could argue some points to establish what would be considered knowledgeable and start from there.

I think the last video from Stan helps prove a few things in his favor because we have discussed briefly in email about the subject of friction and collision and Stan agreed with a statement of a "frictionless game" and how method could produce the effect and I am in 100% agreement with him.

How that actually happens in reality is another story and I won't bet my life Stan or anyone else can for now because I would need to see undeniable facts through scientific method where there cannot be any possible doubt.

I know friction is a virtually inescapable biproduct of nature itself because of movement or vibration that is occurring even at frozen levels, so static rest itself is still movement, but to a tiny degree.

What i am interested in, is degrees. I don't care about what is accepted norms. I say too much of the claims are faulty. I want to know exactly what is and isn't possible from the human side of the equation because I know for a fact I can put effects on a cb and make what seems impossible, actually happen in reality.

I'll push it even further and say that extreme warpage is not a finesse execution of high volatility and low outcomes. It's just another shot that requires reference points of some sort that are not exactly distinguishable from a conventional stand point.

Physics cannot be defied but it can certainly be "warped" and I go on the record by saying that's a ignorant statement on my part because its not warp, it's actually normal, but just not accepted as such because just like Tony chohan and kicking balls to his pocket out in the middle of nowhere, he does it to a higher degree and one day, could be and SHOULD BE, considered a normal shot.

Any way, I asked you a question, can you answer it please?

Thanks

 

[Snooker Theory]

Go for it Neil. Here's a quote he's made in one of my threads. Post 416 http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=441772&page=28

If people have no intention of trying to learn the system, I think going around the cte threads and posting negative things is a bit argumentative. Obviously this is a forum so they can post anywhere they like, but just seems pointless.
Nothing wrong with constructive criticism but if people don't use or understand the system, how can they constructively criticize it ?

 

[Neil]

At what point or direction of time, would you say, I am qualified to be "learn'ed"?

Would you bet money that you know more about that question than I do? We don't have to physically bet for you to give me an answer. It's just a fictitious way of putting it into the form of a question when it comes to certainty and ofcourse, ultimately merit that you find important.

Stan has enough merit for me to consider him ok in my book and so does the other guys you have spelled out this time around, so at least now you are being more direct and I can accept that as merit on your part.

As a side note, to be good at something, one has to be brutally honest with themselves. This means the humble shit needs to be tossed out as if it were common garbage. When it comes to the subject of pool, I consider myself more knowledgeable than most. I cannot say what that equates to though, but I could argue some points to establish what would be considered knowledgeable and start from there.

I think the last video from Stan helps prove a few things in his favor because we have discussed briefly in email about the subject of friction and collision and Stan agreed with a statement of a "frictionless game" and how method could produce the effect and I am in 100% agreement with him.

How that actually happens in reality is another story and I won't bet my life Stan or anyone else can for now because I would need to see undeniable facts through scientific method where there cannot be any possible doubt.

I know friction is a virtually inescapable biproduct of nature itself because of movement or vibration that is occurring even at frozen levels, so static rest itself is still movement, but to a tiny degree.

What i am interested in, is degrees. I don't care about what is accepted norms. I say too much of the claims are faulty. I want to know exactly what is and isn't possible from the human side of the equation because I know for a fact I can put effects on a cb and make what seems impossible, actually happen in reality.

I'll push it even further and say that extreme warpage is not a finesse execution of high volatility and low outcomes. It's just another shot that requires reference points of some sort that are not exactly distinguishable from a conventional stand point.

Physics cannot be defied but it can certainly be "warped" and I go on the record by saying that's a ignorant statement on my part because its not warp, it's actually normal, but just not accepted as such because just like Tony chohan and kicking balls to his pocket out in the middle of nowhere, he does it to a higher degree and one day, could be and SHOULD BE, considered a normal shot.

Any way, I asked you a question, can you answer it please?

Thanks

When you understand what to do and can do it. And when you successfully use it regularly.

 

[paultex]

Jesus, the thought of using someone else's methods is not something I would ever care to do unless the endeavor demanded it and it was inescapable.

Hey, you got to play guitar like jimmy hendrix or play the drums like so and so.

That's fine if someone wants to do that, but there is another side to the coin in which, accomplished or knowledgeable folks say that is the dumbest and lame idea there could be and I agree with that side of the coin because ultimately it's better to put your own signature on things if the ceiling is still void of maximum height. In pool, its a no brainer that there is another 2 levels that can be achieved, that have not been attained yet to officially raise the bar.

I told Stan and this is my opinion, that CTE is not a end road but possibly a starting point. In my opinion, i say it is a starting point and not just a possibility because the man has certainly put enough effort into it and arguing a basis for objectivety and at the very least or worse or better, started a beginning for argument to prove wrong or right and the process could or probably will force something revolutionary. Who cares who is proven wrong or right when it really comes down to it because something positive usually and always will come out of it if at least one person is driven enough for what ever reason and it is just about always predicated with scorn and ridicule.

I shall send Orcollo back to the islands BROKE and not only will I follow him there and then spot him, I shall make it look EASY and not use any chalk on my triangle tip.

Chalk is for pussies and I still use it, so yeah I'm a puss but I guess one day I'll develop some balls but one step at a time for now.

One day I'll have to get these mods to ban my IP address but im too weak, but that's going to change and when im gone, there will be no more. There is no AFTER PAUL.

Let it be written, so shall it be done. Look at your champions!......mere toys for me to crush in the palm of my hand.

 

[Dan White]

If people have no intention of trying to learn the system, I think going around the cte threads and posting negative things is a bit argumentative. Obviously this is a forum so they can post anywhere they like, but just seems pointless.
Nothing wrong with constructive criticism but if people don't use or understand the system, how can they constructively criticize it ?

You've been a member for about 3 weeks, unless you are using an alias. Assuming for the moment that you are an innocent bystander (ahem), you are a good example of why Neil complains like he does. Most of what he says if false and is only intended to confuse new people. Why doesn't Neil ever answer a simple question with a simple answer? Let's try this one again:

Neil, set up a cut shot and hit the ob into center pocket with a soft CTE stroke and then again into center pocket with a hard CTE stroke. How do you make both shots go down the middle of the pocket? Thanks.

 

[Snooker Theory]

You've been a member for about 3 weeks, unless you are using an alias. Assuming for the moment that you are an innocent bystander (ahem), you are a good example of why Neil complains like he does. Most of what he says if false and is only intended to confuse new people. Why doesn't Neil ever answer a simple question with a simple answer? Let's try this one again:

Neil, set up a cut shot and hit the ob into center pocket with a soft CTE stroke and then again into center pocket with a hard CTE stroke. How do you make both shots go down the middle of the pocket? Thanks.

Does the amount of time I have been on the forum somehow invalidate my point?
If as you say "most of what Neil says is false", then why engage Neil?, just put him on ignore.
If cte is bunk, why waste your time even discussing it?

 

[BC21]

If people have no intention of trying to learn the system, I think going around the cte threads and posting negative things is a bit argumentative. Obviously this is a forum so they can post anywhere they like, but just seems pointless.
Nothing wrong with constructive criticism but if people don't use or understand the system, how can they constructively criticize it ?

I sort of understand your point, but I have to say there are other subjects that I know little about and question often. You don't have to become a believer or be thoroughly trained in a subject to ask probing questions. In fact, those are the types that ask no probing questions -- they just do what their told and trust the results. I've tried what I was told and shown with CTE and I have questions. Did I spend weeks, months, or years tweaking it until I finally got it to work consistently? No. Something that us supposed to be objective should not require such a time frame to learn. That would make it a learning experience, where success is based on individual experience. That's why I have questions.

It's nice that we can talk about things without being rude and derogatory. Maybe for once we'll have some productive learning or shared knowledge.

 

[paultex]

When you understand what to do and can do it. And when you successfully use it regularly.

Ohhhh!:smile2::smile2::smile2: the sound of pouring iced cream!

Thou hast earned a free sound track to the documentary sequel of "The making of Pool the movie: weeeeeeeee!!" It's 10 hours long. The original movie is 1 hour, 6 minutes and 32 seconds and a budget of 2k$ but the documentary will be estimated at $1.6 billion, give or take a few hundred mill.

Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhhcpQI3iAs&t=41s