CTE Trumps CIT

[8pack]

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.

I think people who use a method let's say like aiming at the point to the pocket will realize over time an adjust needs to made over different types of hits. If one uses a method of just seeing the shot after hours of practice will try to produce a picture that looks correct . In both situations something different has to occur for success.
This is the pitfall of all your aiming systems. Learning to get them to work an reconising change has to happen for success is the only way. A system that directs you to one line an one line only, won't get it done.

 

[Snooker Theory]

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.

I agree, nothing wrong with probing questions from either a critic or someone who is interested in learning.

Lets take a hypothetical situation of an atheist and christian, if an atheist doesn't believe in the bible and think its bunk, when he asks a christian a question, he isn't really asking questions about the Bible to learn, he already has his mind made up, its just to have a discussion/argument,ESPECIALLY IF THE christian has already tried to answer the atheists question.

Now if every time that christian starts a thread the atheist chimes in with same questions, its not really about the questions, just antagonizing someone.

But at a certain point it reads like this to me.

Thread 1 about cte- Same critics make comments/questions about cte, receive same answer (or lack of answer) from the same people, over and over.

Thread 2. Same critics make comments make comments/questions about cte, receive answer(or lack of answer)
Thread 3. Make same comments/questions about cte, receive answer(or lack of answer)
Thread 4. Make same comments/questions about cte, receive answer(or lack of answer)
Thread 5. Make same comments/questions about cte, receive answer(or lack of answer)

 

[Neil]

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.

Once again, you are stuck on your lame attempts at nitpicking, and in the process you show a total lack of understanding of CTE.

How many times does Stan have to state that CTE is a professional system? That means that most shots are hit with the same speed. Buddy Hall also touted to use the same speed whenever possible.

So, for you to be even talking about shots outside of the norm for the system, whether the system can handle them or not, is just as stupid as others on here arguing that CTE is no good because it does't work on a masse' shot. Or that one has to make allowances for using english.

Second you are stuck on dead middle of the pocket- both shots going in the exact same place. Maybe you should watch the video again, and re-read what Mohrt told you. You have your answer, but fail to hear it and keep asking it.

 

[Neil]

I think people who use a method let's say like aiming at the point to the pocket will realize over time an adjust needs to made over different types of hits. If one uses a method of just seeing the shot after hours of practice will try to produce a picture that looks correct . In both situations something different has to occur for success.
This is the pitfall of all your aiming systems. Learning to get them to work an reconising change has to happen for success is the only way. A system that directs you to one line an one line only, won't get it done.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that an AIMING system is a complete package to playing great pool. I will gladly take an aiming system that puts me to center pocket with using center line cb over one that doesn't. Any adjustments for known factors such as english are then easily adjusted for.

 

[paultex]

I NEED NO ADJUSTMENTS FOR ENGLISH

Dennis, phone call for you, i think its the same guy who has been calling.

Ok, thanks honey.......hello?

IS THIS DENNIS ORCOLLO?

Yeah???....who is this?

THIS IS THE MAN WHO WILL DEFEAT YOU.

Yeah? Well you wont have a chance.

DONT BET ON THAT....cha'click

Who was it dennis?

................................................................................No one honey.

 

[mohrt]

I think people who use a method let's say like aiming at the point to the pocket will realize over time an adjust needs to made over different types of hits. If one uses a method of just seeing the shot after hours of practice will try to produce a picture that looks correct . In both situations something different has to occur for success.
This is the pitfall of all your aiming systems. Learning to get them to work an reconising change has to happen for success is the only way. A system that directs you to one line an one line only, won't get it done.

I try to shoot pool in a manner that minimizes the variables. That will in turn, maximize consistency. One variable is aim. CTE does an excellent job of minimizing that part of the shot equation. I'd say its about 1/3 of it. Then there is stroke. You have to deliver a straight stroke. This takes years to develop. I'd say that is another 1/3. The rest is the variables on a given shot. throw, speed, spin, playing conditions, what you're accomplishing with the shot etc. Over time I have learned subconsciously that the closer to a half ball hit, the more CIT is a concern, especially with a slower shot. So I hit the ball medium/firm to minimize the variable, if given the choice. If I have to hit soft, I'll impart some top english to minimize the variable. Or maybe outside spin, it really depends on what I'm trying to do with the cue ball. Pocket width gives wiggle room for this stuff. You as a player, must combine all this information together and execute the shot. No magic bullets, but systems are a great way to improve your game.

 

[8pack]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that an AIMING system is a complete package to playing great pool. I will gladly take an aiming system that puts me to center pocket with using center line cb over one that doesn't. Any adjustments for known factors such as english are then easily adjusted for.

You might have a system on paper that takes you center pocket, but that system won't get it done without learned adjustments on the table.

 

[8pack]

I try to shoot pool in a manner that minimizes the variables. That will in turn, maximize consistency. One variable is aim. CTE does an excellent job of minimizing that part of the shot equation. I'd say its about 1/3 of it. Then there is stroke. You have to deliver a straight stroke. This takes years to develop. I'd say that is another 1/3. The rest is the variables on a given shot. throw, speed, spin, playing conditions, what you're accomplishing with the shot etc. Over time I have learned subconsciously that the closer to a half ball hit, the more CIT is a concern, especially with a slower shot. So I hit the ball medium/firm to minimize the variable, if given the choice. If I have to hit soft, I'll impart some top english to minimize the variable. Or maybe outside spin, it really depends on what I'm trying to do with the cue ball. Pocket width gives wiggle room for this stuff. You as a player, must combine all this information together and execute the shot. No magic bullets, but systems are a great way to improve your game.

I like your post. When I spoke with Earl on how he aims his answer was I spin a lot of balls in. Maybe sticking to a certain type pocketing produces a better percent over the long haul. Not that players don't no how to but chooses not to because of past inconsistent results.

 

[Dan White]

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.

Two things: One, he put the ob on the divot foot spot in the first video and had no apparent problems. Second, he now has the ob possibly running over the edge of the spot. How is that better than reproducing the placement in the first video.

This is the kind of unnecessary confusion you get when a school teacher tries to become scientific. He has introduced another variable between the two videos that unnecessarily puts a question mark in front of whatever point he was trying to make with the second video. Has he made the angle shallow enough to make throw negligible? Based on Brian's graph, possibly so.

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.

Yes, of course. The pocket opening provides some room for error. Stan is allergic to the idea that CTE relies on pocket slop to overcome things like variation in throw due to shot speed.

 

[Dan White]

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.

Thanks for doing a video, mohrt. OK, so I had an idea of how to learn something from what you did. Here's what I came up with:

I took a stopwatch and clocked from the time I heard tip contact until the time I heard the ball fall into the pocket. I did it several times for each shot and was surprisingly accurate, often reproducing times to the .01 second. I then converted the time into speed, in inches per second, IPS, just to make it easier to interpret.

Shot 1......64 IPS
Shot 2......60
Shot 3......60 overcut but went in
Shot 4......75
Shot 5......113 overcut miss
Shot 6......90
Shot 7......90
Shot 8......74
Shot 9......82

Observations: Your first four shots were hit softly and at about the same speed. You ate your Wheaties on shot 5 and nearly doubled your shot speed. It is interesting that this is the only shot you missed, and it was an over cut. Over cut is exactly what we would expect on a 30 degree hit at elevated speed and is exactly what we saw Stan do in his first video when he wasn't paying attention.

Now, you also over cut soft shot 3, which still went in, and I recognize that you are probably not warmed up and not in stroke. However, it is still worthy to note that the only shot you hit above even 100 IPS is the only shot you missed, and was an over cut.

It would not be fair for me to conclusively say that your overcut was due to the higher speed, but it is plenty to suggest another test in the future with your curtain. The only problem is that when you are thinking about over cutting or not over cutting, you might begin to influence the results. If you give it an honest try at various speeds with a curtain, I think you'll still find that CTE is speed dependent and tweaks to the alignment are necessary based on speed.

 

[Dan White]

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.....

Great graph! So tell me again if you would. What is your best estimate of the angle in video 1 vs video 2 and what does your BD graph say about it?

 

[Dan White]

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?

Yes, your time here does invalidate your opinion on that one specific issue. You know nothing about any of the various posters here unless you have been lurking for the last couple of years. To answer your question, I generally ignore Neil. However, we have just recently proved to a reasonable degree that Stan's CTE Pro1 is not an objective aiming system as he has been saying for years. Spider was banned for being Spider, so I was interested to see Neil's take on recent events. Predictably, everything went right over his head. People don't see what they don't want to see.

Point 2, I'm not saying CTE is bunk. In fact I have always acknowledged that some people are very happy with their progress by using it. I am saying that it works for a completely different reason than how the product is sold, and we are starting to see cold, hard evidence through video to support that view.

Don't worry, Neil will be on ignore very shortly.

 

[Neil]

Yes, your time here does invalidate your opinion on that one specific issue. You know nothing about any of the various posters here unless you have been lurking for the last couple of years. To answer your question, I generally ignore Neil. However, we have just recently proved to a reasonable degree that Stan's CTE Pro1 is not an objective aiming system as he has been saying for years. Spider was banned for being Spider, so I was interested to see Neil's take on recent events. Predictably, everything went right over his head. People don't see what they don't want to see.

Point 2, I'm not saying CTE is bunk. In fact I have always acknowledged that some people are very happy with their progress by using it. I am saying that it works for a completely different reason than how the product is sold, and we are starting to see cold, hard evidence through video to support that view.

Don't worry, Neil will be on ignore very shortly.

Of course I will be. You can't handle it when a light is shown on the nonsense you post to knock CTE.

 

[Dan White]

But at a certain point it reads like this to me.

Thread 1 about cte- Same critics make comments/questions about cte, receive same answer (or lack of answer) from the same people, over and over.

Thread 2. Same critics make comments make comments/questions about cte, receive answer(or lack of answer)
Thread 3. Make same comments/questions about cte, receive answer(or lack of answer)
Thread 4. Make same comments/questions about cte, receive answer(or lack of answer)
Thread 5. Make same comments/questions about cte, receive answer(or lack of answer)

Well then you are not paying attention to the new information Stan provided, and that we have been discussing, all week. I can't help it if some people are parrots and can only say the same crap over and over in light of new information... not my problem.

 

[Neil]

Well then you are not paying attention to the new information Stan provided, and that we have been discussing, all week. I can't help it if some people are parrots and can only say the same crap over and over in light of new information... not my problem.

Well, if you really can't help doing it over and over, maybe you should seek out some professional help? Maybe if you actually listened to the info, you wouldn't keep parroting the same wrong responses? Worth a try, yes?

 

[Dan White]

Wow, finally an almost answer from Neil. Interesting. So let's go over this:

How many times does Stan have to state that CTE is a professional system? That means that most shots are hit with the same speed. Buddy Hall also touted to use the same speed whenever possible.

OK, so you are saying that to play the game like a professional I have to hit all my shots at the same speed, which in Stan's case is just under mach 1? Funny, I had a HOF player (Rempe) tell me there are two styles. One is constant speed with variable english (and he mentioned Buddy Hall) and the other is variable speed with less english. Maybe I need to have him call Neil so he can learn the proper way to play like a real pro.

So, for you to be even talking about shots outside of the norm for the system, whether the system can handle them or not, is just as stupid as others on here arguing that CTE is no good because it does't work on a masse' shot. Or that one has to make allowances for using english.

So to clarify, you are agreeing that by varying the speed of the shot while using CTE Pro1, you will change the resulting direction of the ob due to throw, correct? Follow up question: Where and when in the last 10 years has Stan ever admitted that this is true? Oh, so many questions... This means that CTE can only be used at one speed?

Second you are stuck on dead middle of the pocket- both shots going in the exact same place. Maybe you should watch the video again, and re-read what Mohrt told you. You have your answer, but fail to hear it and keep asking it.

So which is it? Do I need to hit everything at the same speed to avoid changes in throw and play like a professional, or does CTE stick me to dead middle pocket as shown in the second video (but not the first)?

 

[Dan White]

I try to shoot pool in a manner that minimizes the variables. That will in turn, maximize consistency. One variable is aim. CTE does an excellent job of minimizing that part of the shot equation. I'd say its about 1/3 of it. Then there is stroke. You have to deliver a straight stroke. This takes years to develop. I'd say that is another 1/3. The rest is the variables on a given shot. throw, speed, spin, playing conditions, what you're accomplishing with the shot etc. Over time I have learned subconsciously that the closer to a half ball hit, the more CIT is a concern, especially with a slower shot. So I hit the ball medium/firm to minimize the variable, if given the choice. If I have to hit soft, I'll impart some top english to minimize the variable. Or maybe outside spin, it really depends on what I'm trying to do with the cue ball. Pocket width gives wiggle room for this stuff. You as a player, must combine all this information together and execute the shot. No magic bullets, but systems are a great way to improve your game.

Sounds about right to me. Have you discussed the fact that you tweak your aim to account for throw with Stan? I'm not trying to play gotcha. Unless I've missed something, Stan says that CTE takes care of throw for any shot.

 

[Neil]

Wow, finally an almost answer from Neil. Interesting. So let's go over this:



OK, so you are saying that to play the game like a professional I have to hit all my shots at the same speed, which in Stan's case is just under mach 1? Funny, I had a HOF player (Rempe) tell me there are two styles. One is constant speed with variable english (and he mentioned Buddy Hall) and the other is variable speed with less english. Maybe I need to have him call Neil so he can learn the proper way to play like a real pro.



So to clarify, you are agreeing that by varying the speed of the shot while using CTE Pro1, you will change the resulting direction of the ob due to throw, correct? Follow up question: Where and when in the last 10 years has Stan ever admitted that this is true? Oh, so many questions... This means that CTE can only be used at one speed?



So which is it? Do I need to hit everything at the same speed to avoid changes in throw and play like a professional, or does CTE stick me to dead middle pocket as shown in the second video (but not the first)?

Same ol', same ol'. You know, if you weren't so obsessed with nit-picking every little comment, and instead listened with an ear to learn, you might actually learn something.

 

[mohrt]

Sounds about right to me. Have you discussed the fact that you tweak your aim to account for throw with Stan? I'm not trying to play gotcha. Unless I've missed something, Stan says that CTE takes care of throw for any shot.

I'm interested to know where it was stated exactly as "CTE takes care of throw for any shot." What I understand is "CTE has an overcut to compensate for CIT." I think its pretty clear if you take a specific shot, and the only variable you changes is speed, the throw (depending on the severity of cut) will vary. Also, you would likely not change the CTE perception on the given shot, meaning you are not going to change the cut angle. So something has to give, yes? Now when I hit a very typical, medium speed to firm hit, and my stroke is true, the ball tends to travel to center pocket. If I hit very softly, I'm going to compensate, from experience, with high or outside spin. If I hit very hard, I don't *think* I consciously change anything, and also my shot percentage goes down dramatically. That's why I don't slam balls into pockets. The game will almost never call for that, and my stroke isn't going to bode well, and my game would suffer from it. I think (and I'm fine to be corrected) that the CTE overcut is addressing the large majority of shots that fall in the medium/firm range. For shorter shots, its even less of an issue. For longer shots, you have to work from experience to know what to address for the given shot. Firing in table-length cut shots at warp speed is probably not going to win you very many trophies.

 

[mohrt]

I want to add one note. Given a specific shot on the table, you as the shooter need to factor in details such as throw, length of shot, table conditions, where the cueball is going, etc. What CTE is going to do for you is give you the EXACT same lineup on that shot. Every. Single. Time. It is up to you to get the mechanics consistent.